Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Improvement Programme, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what steps he will take in the coming year to enlarge the road improvement programme in Newcastle-under-Lyme.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): We have already authorised substantial road improvements in Newcastle-under-Lyme, and I regret we have no funds available to increase them during the coming year.

Mr. Swingler: While thanking the Parliamentary Secretary for the very small mercies already granted, may I ask whether he is aware that the scheme of trunk road improvement is really urgent? Does he know that the Council of Newcastle-under-Lyme has just reiterated its extreme anxiety about the intolerable traffic conditions in the centre of the town? Cannot he now, if not for this year at any rate for next year, give the date for the trunk road improvement scheme, which is holding things up?

Mr. Nugent: I am afraid—and the hon. Gentleman already knows this—that I cannot yet give him the date. I would remind him that Newcastle-under-Lyme will next year have £330,000 of road works done there, and that this is a fairly good first instalment.

Traffic Control (Television Installations)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether the type of new permanent television

traffic controls are to be installed in cities other than Durham; and what is the cost of these control points, compared with the normal traffic light control.

Mr. Nugent: Conditions in Durham are exceptional, and I know of no plans to use similar equipment elsewhere. The television installation cost about £3,700. Normal traffic light signals would not function here at all.

Mr. Janner: Was the hon. Member wrong when he said at the time of the installation of this television traffic control that it would be very useful in other places? Has he changed his mind about that? Does not he think that this arrangement might be used in many places with considerable advantage?

Mr. Nugent: Nothing in my reply closes the door to it being used elsewhere. It may be useful elsewhere, but only in somewhat exceptional circumstances. We shall certainly watch the Durham experiment to see whether it can be applied elsewhere.

B.6093—A.630 Junction, West Riding

Mr. D. Griffiths: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he proposes to give authority to carry out the improvement where road B.6093 joins the trunk road A.630 in the West Riding.

Mr. Nugent: I cannot say at present when we will be able to include a scheme for the improvement of this junction in the road programme.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that I am absolutely confounded by that shocking reply? This matter has been under discussion since 1955. Do we have to wait until there have been more deaths on the road before the Department will make up its mind? Is it not the Ministry which is causing the delay?

Mr. Nugent: I am afraid that all of these schemes have to wait their turn in the very long queue which requires attention. Incidentally, this particular point will have considerable relief when the Doncaster by-pass is built and, as the hon. Member knows, that is not so very far off.

Mr. Griffiths: Is it not intolerable to talk about the Doncaster by-pass being responsible for another improvement which is entirely separate and apart? Is not this another instance that people in Whitehall know absolutely nothing about local circumstances?

Mr. Nugent: I must make it plain that the length of the queue of roads requiring attention is largely due to the neglect of the hon. Member and his right hon. Friends when they formed the Government.

Clifton Bridge, Nottingham (Trunk Road Link)

Mr. J. Harrison: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give a firm date for the commencement of work on the trunk roads leading to and from the new Clifton Bridge, Nottingham, in view of the fact that the new bridge will be completed within the next month or so.

Mr. Nugent: We have published a draft Order under the Trunk Roads Act, 1946, to establish the line of a new trunk road between Clifton Boulevard (A.614) and Lings Bar (A.606). When this Order can be made we shall invite the City Council and the County Council to proceed with detailed preparation of the scheme for a trunk road link on the line laid down in the Order. I cannot at this stage say when we will be able to start the constructional work.

Mr. Harrison: The hon. Member will recognise the urgency of connecting this bridge with the trunk roads. Will he take as an illustration of that urgency the fact that Nottingham City Corporation has spent hundreds of thousands of pounds on making the connections possible by building a new approach and packing up the roads leading from the bridge towards the trunk roads?

Mr. Nugent: I realise that the city has made great progress. As the hon. Member knows, we are making inquiries now for the preparatory work to proceed. As soon as that is in hand, we can give this a high priority in our future programmes.

Road Safety Committees (Financial Allocation)

Mr. W. R. Williams: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what sum of money was allocated to local

road safety committees during the current financial year; and how this compares with allocations of the two previous financial years.

Mr. Nugent: In the present financial year £189,462 has so far been allocated to local authorities in England and Wales for road safety. The amount in 1956–57 was 177,543 and in 1955–56 was 167,689.

Mr. Williams: In view of the appalling loss of life and the serious injuries disclosed by the figures given by the Minister recently, does not the hon. Member agree that it is imperative that still more ample funds should be made available to try to inject into the public conscience a renewed sense of alarm and shame at the conditions now obtaining?

Mr. Nugent: The expenditure of public funds is not the only way of putting this over. We are now spending quite substantial sums and, of course, they are the background of an immense volume of voluntary work done by local road safety committees, to whom I pay tribute. The money is sufficient to keep the wheels turning, but any voluntary help which we can get we will gladly welcome.

Mr. Strauss: In view of past criticisms that some of this money is wasted by the rather bad display and use by local authorities of road safety campaign posters, can the hon. Member say whether any action has been taken by his Ministry, or by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, to see that those posters are better, and better displayed?

Mr. Nugent: The Royal Society is always available to advise local authorities in their campaign and, as a rule, local authorities are very glad to have that advice. I am not aware of any specific cases where local authorities have fallen down on their usual high standards, but if the right hon. Gentleman will let me know, I will be very glad to look into the matter.

Accidents

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what analysis has been made of the peak hours for road accidents; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Nugent: The statistics issued monthly and annually by my Department show that the weekday peak hours for road accidents are 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and 5 p.m. to 7 p.m. There are other peaks at the weekend, and certain hours are particularly dangerous for children.

Mr. Thomas: As these peak hours have been known to people for a very long time, does the Minister still feel justified in the Answer that he has given to my hon. Friend about the amount of money that is being spent on road safety warnings? These accidents are taking place at a time when people are going to and from their work on their bicycles. Can he give some advice to local authorities about street lighting in connection with this matter?

Mr. Nugent: I how that the hon. Member is concerned with street lighting hut, as he knows, I have no control over that problem. Street lighting is a vital aspect of improving road safety in the 5–7 p.m. period, and I hope that those concerned will take note of that fact.

Mr. Isaacs: Es it not correct that in the case of motor vehicles there is an alarming jump in the number of casualties after 10 p.m.?

Mr. Nugent: That is so.

Mr. G. Thomas: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the number of persons killed and injured, respectively, by road accidents in Wales since 1945.

Mr. Nugent: From 1945 to 1957 inclusive, 3,353 persons were killed and 120,305 injured in road accidents in Wales and Monmouthshire.

Parking Meters, Westminster

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he has yet come to a decision with regard to the provision of parking meters in the West End of London.

Mr. Partridge: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many schemes for parking meters in Central London have been proposed to him by the authorities concerned; and how many he has approved.

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many

proposals for installing parking meters have been received by him from local authorities up to date.

Mr. Nugent: We have received applications for Orders authorising the use of parking meters from the Westminster City Council and the St. Marylebone Borough Council. In both cases public inquiries have been held. The Marylebone report has not yet been received. In the case of the Westminster Order, we have now received the reports of the Inspector who held the inquiry and of the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee which we are bound to consult. They both advise us, subject to modifications on some points of detail, to proceed with the scheme. We have considered this advice and decided to accept it. We shall proceed, therefore, to make the necessary Order as soon as we have given detailed consideration to the modifications proposed.

Mr. Fisher: Is my hon. Friend aware that this decision to expedite the matter and not to await the Marylebone inquiry will be much welcomed in London? Can he give the House any idea when the meters will be installed and operating in the Westminster area?

Mr. Nugent: I am advised that it will take about three months from the time when the Order is made and Westminster Council can proceed.

Mr. Ernest Davies: May we take it that the House will have an opportunity of debating the Order when it is laid before the House? I think that it has to be in the form of an affirmative Resolution. Now that the decision has been reached, will the Minister enter into consultations with his right hon. Friend in regard to the enforcement of parking restrictions in the area adjacent to that in which parking meters are to be installed? Does not the success of the whole scheme depend upon the very strict enforcement of regulations to ensure a free flow of traffic?

Mr. Nugent: The scheme certainly depends upon strict enforcement both in the restricted area and adjacent to it, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and, through him, the police, are well aware—in fact I have their own assurance about it—that the whole scheme depends upon that. As to


the first part of the supplementary question, this Order requires a Resolution of the House, and there will therefore be an opportunity to debate it.

Mr. Partridge: As we have got off to a very slow start here, may I express the hope that the Minister will not allow any delays to take place either in his Department or elsewhere? This is an experiment which is really necessary in order to decide whether this is the proper way of dealing with an almost insoluble problem, and the sooner we tackle it the better we shall be able to see whether it is the answer.

Mr. Nugent: My right hon. Friend and I are well aware of that. We are most anxious to get this scheme going, so that we can have just the experience to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Russell: Can my hon. Friend say whether the Westminster scheme will cover a wide area of the West End?

Mr. Nugent: No, it is a fairly limited area. It is the north-west corner of Mayfair. It includes Park Lane and Oxford Street, and goes roughly as far south as the southern boundary of Grosvenor Square.

Eastern Avenue Extension, Leyton

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what further information he has in respect of the Eastern Avenue extension through the Borough of Leyton, particularly as affecting tenants and householders whose houses will be demolished.

Mr. Nugent: I am unable at present to add to my reply of 4th December.

Mr. Sorensen: Does the Minister appreciate that this prolonged delay extending over many years, despite all that the Leyton Borough Council has been able to do, is causing great hardship and anxiety to householders in my constituency, many of whom cannot sell their houses because it is known publicly that these houses are likely to be demolished? Can the Minister do something to expedite this matter?

Mr. Nugent: The general problem exists in other areas besides the constituency of the hon. Member and the Government are making a detailed study

to see whether there is any way of relieving what is known as "planning blight". Regarding the problem in the hon. Member's constituency, there is considerable difficulty in deciding how this road extension shall go in such a congested area, but we are proceeding as fast as we can, and I can assure the hon. Member that we shall not delay matters.

Whipps Cross, Leyton

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if the reconstruction of roadways near Whipps Cross, Leyton, will be affected by Government economy measures or if the time taken for the reconstruction will now be longer than previously announced and whether heavy traffic running on the roadway when completed will be restricted to less than the 40 miles per hour then permissible to other traffic.

Mr. Nugent: No, Sir. Work has begun and is expected to
be completed by September. It has not yet been decided whether the general speed limit on this road is to be raised to 40 m.p.h., but in any case the speed limits which apply to particular classes of vehicles would not be affected.

Mr. Sorensen: Is the Minister aware that a notice at this spot indicates that the traffic limit will be 40 miles an hour? Will he look into the matter very carefully, in view of the fact that already this area has a great deal of heavy traffic running across it and that it will have more in the future, making it more liable to be very dangerous to pedestrians? Has any consideration been paid to the means of crossing over the roadway when it is finished?

Mr. Nugent: The proposal to raise the speed limit to 40 miles an hour is about to be advertised and it will then go to the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee to be considered be-for my right hon. Friend finally reaches a decision. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all aspects of the problem will be fully taken into account before that decision is arrived at.

Proposed Underpass, Kingston By-Pass

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the recommendations, accepted


by the Government, of the Franks Committee, he will reconsider his refusal to publish the Report of the independent inspector whom he appointed to inquire into the proposal for an underpass at the Ace of Spades junction on the Kingston By-pass.

Mr. Nugent: No, Sir.

Mr. Fisher: Is my hon. Friend aware that this recommendation of the Franks Committee that all inspectors' reports should be published was one of those which were specifically accepted by the Lord Privy Seal in this House on 31st October? As the Kingston By-pass Report to which I have referred happened to be against the Minister's decision, would it not be fairer to the objectors if they, as well as the Minister, were allowed to read it?

Mr. Nugent: No, Sir. I do not think there are grounds for changing the decision. The decision letter which was sent out by my right hon. Friend ran to about five and a half pages and dealt with every significant aspect of this inquiry, including the conclusions of the inspector. Therefore, everyone was fully informed of the purport of the report. As this particular report and inquiry were similar to dozens of others taking place up and down the country it would be premature, before the general practice of publishing such reports comes in, to publish this one.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in view of the fact that the conclusion of the independent inspector after a public inquiry was against the implementation of his Department's proposals to construct an underpass at the Ace of Spades junction on the Kingston By-pass, he will now allow the objectors to the proposals an opportunity to make further representations to him and to question the technical witnesses before the proposals for an underpass are carried into effect.

Mr. Nugent: No, Sir. Before a decision was reached the matters at issue were the subject of prolonged consideration and the views put forward on behalf of the objectors at the inquiry were fully taken into account.

Mr. Fisher: Is it not the fact that the Government accepted the principle

of the Franks Committee recommendations and that the Lord Privy Seal promised that those principles would be carried into effect in practice by Government Departments? Why are those safeguards denied to my constituents in this case? Surely what is suggested in the Question would be only common justice and fair dealing?

Mr. Nugent: My right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal announced that the Government accept this in principle, but it has very wide ramifications, not only for my Department, but for the Ministry of Housing and Local Government, the Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance and so on, which have literally thousands of inquiries a year. We have to make a co-ordinated arrangement by which all these reports in future will be published and we are just not ready to do that yet.

Mr. Hirst: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (1) to what extent the public interest will be served through the construction of an underpass at the Ace of Spades junction on the Kingston By-pass, as compared to an enlarged and improved roundabout, in view of the heavy capital cost which will be incurred if the underpass proposals are implemented;
(2) the estimated total cost according to present plans of the proposed underpass road development scheme at the Ace of Spades junction on the Kingston By-pass; and how this cost compares with the estimate for an enlarged and improved roundabout as suggested to him by the Kingston By-pass Association.

Mr. Nugent: With permission, I will answer Questions Nos. 41 and 42 together.

Mr. Hirst: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A very different principle applies to these two Questions. I should be grateful if they could be answered separately.

Mr. Speaker: One Answer has been prepared. I think the hon. Member should hear whether it covers both Questions, and then he can ask a supplementary question.

Mr. Nugent: We have reviewed this scheme very fully and are satisfied that only an underpass will adequately serve


the needs of the traffic at this junction. The cost, which includes the approaches, slip roads and also the extension of the dual carriageways westwards to Woodstock Lane is about £500,000.
The Association has estimated the cost of its suggested roundabout at £80,000, but I am advised that the probable cost would be more than double this, without including any provision for extending dual carriageways. In any event, in our judgment it would be quite inadequate for the traffic.

Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware that, at the public inquiry, expert evidence was given that the flow of traffic which could be carried by the enlarged roundabout was of the order of 5,500 vehicles an hour, which is a great deal more than the 75 per cent. which his own Department lays down, based on 1954 traffic? Quite clearly, on the figures the hon. Gentleman has given—even if they are adjusted—his own scheme would be about four times the cost of that of the Kingston By-pass Association. Really the country cannot be expected to take the Government's economic policy as clearly and readily as it is expected to be taken if this extravagance is permitted.

Mr. Nugent: No, Sir. We considered very carefully indeed whether a roundabout or underpass should be built. In our opinion the smallest roundabout which would even begin to meet the needs of traffic there would be of a size which would involve the demolition of no less than four shops and one public house and have an effect on surrounding property. There is no doubt that our present proposal would interfere far less with property round there as well as giving a much improved traffic flow.

Mr. Hirst: Is my hon. Friend aware that that is absolutely contrary to the opinion of the Kingston By-pass Association and that he has no grounds at all for saying that?

Dogs

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation in how many cases during the past three years road accidents have been caused by straying dogs.

Mr. Nugent: During the three years ended 30th November, 1957, dogs in the

carriageway contributed to 8,047 road accidents involving personal injury.

Mr. Lipton: Is not it quite obvious that many of these accidents could have been avoided and lives saved if the law were enforced requiring that every dog should have some means of identification on its collar, and if fines were imposed on dog owners who did not comply with the law on the subject?

Mr. Nugent: A great many of these dogs do not have collars. The whole problem is one of enforcement. That is why we have left it to local authorities to decide whether they wish to have regulations about dogs.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

Boards (Conditions of Membership)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will bring forward legislation to make it a condition of membership of the nationalised boards to which he makes appointments that other directorships and appointments be relinquished.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): No, Sir. I would refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Lord Privy Seal to the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) on 17th December last.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that this is a highly unsatisfactory reply? Does he not know that the Government have agreed to refer the position of part-time directors of the Bank of England to a committee, because they recognise that there is a matter of principle involved here? Would he not, therefore, do the same in regard to those directors of nationalised concerns dealing with transport who have private interests that might conflict with their public duties?

Mr. Neave: I am well aware of what is being done about the position of the part-time directors of the Bank of England, but that is not strictly this Question. If the hon. Gentleman will study my right hon. Friend's reply, as I am sure he will, he will find that this practice has been followed concerning outside directorships since 1953.

Mr. D. Jones: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the six part-time members of the British Transport Commission hold thirty-two other directorships between them, and that many of the firms of which they are directors make equipment of which the B.T.C. is a substantial purchaser? What does he propose to do about it?

Mr. Neave: My right hon. Friend considers each of these cases on its merits.

Motor-cyclists (Minimum Age)

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he has yet received the views of interested organisations on the recommendations of the Committee on Road Safety for varying the minimum age for riding certain types of motor-cycle; and whether he will make a further statement.

Mr. Nugent: As I told my hon. and gallant Friend in my letter of 22nd January, we must satisfy ourselves that it is in the interests of road safety before we can consider lowering the minimum age for riding light motor-cycles. I am arranging to put in hand in the spring a survey designed to give us information bearing on this question.

Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, and while agreeing that this is a matter in which we have to proceed carefully, may I ask him, nevertheless, to remember that we are considering a recommendation by the Committee on Road Safety? Would he also consider inquiring of the German authorities whether they have any figures showing the accident rate to 15-year-olds on mopeds as compared with 16-year-olds because, would he not agree, that comparison would be relevant to our problem?

Mr. Nugent: I am not likely to forget what my hon. and gallant Friend suggests in the first part of his supplementary question, because I am Chairman of that Committee. On his second point I feel that we should collect the best information we can from our own young motorcyclists, because that will be the only reliable guide we can have as to what relationship there is between age and experience of riding and accidents.

Mr. J. Harrison: The Minister will recognise that the moped is now the most

popular form of conveyance to work. Will he remember that the school-leaving age is fifteen, that lads of this age are deprived of using the method of travelling to work enjoyed by boys of sixteen, and that it would unify the position if the Minister would allow boys of fifteen to go to work on these vehicles?

Mr. Nugent: I am well aware of the potential advantages, but we must assure ourselves first that it will be consistent with road safety.

Motoring Offences (Pamphlet)

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will cause to be issued with new or renewed driving licences a brief pamphlet setting out the maximum penalties for motoring offences.

Mr. Nugent: No, Sir; whilst I sympathise with the motives which have inspired my hon. Friend's Question, I doubt the deterrent effect of a pamphlet such as he proposes.

Mr. Page: Does not my hon. Friend recollect the successful deterrent effect of the publication of maximum penalties for such minor offences as pulling a communication cord and spitting? Will he not apply the same principles to these far more serious offences in motoring?

Mr. Nugent: No, Sir. I do not think that it would have the effect for which my hon. Friend hopes.

Motor-cyclists (Safety Helmets)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether, in order to decrease the seriousness of road accidents, he will make the wearing of crash helmets compulsory for motor-cyclists.

Mrs. L. Jeger: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will consider introducing legislation to make the wearing of safety helmets by motor cyclists compulsory.

Mr. Nugent: No, Sir. In this matter I think education and propaganda are better than compulsion.

Captain Pilkington: Would not it be far better to use the police to enforce the wearing of these helmets rather than to employ them on duty on the 30 m.p.h. roads?

Mr. Nugent: I think not. I think that motor-cycle riders are becoming increasingly aware of the value of these helmets. There is a satisfactory increase in the number worn and for all of us to give all the publicity we can to their value will best reach the right result.

Mrs. L. Jeger: How can the hon. Member refer to a satisfactory increase when he told the House, in reply to a Question of mine on 22nd January, that he had no figures of the number of deaths and injuries among motor-cyclists and no information about whether those killed or hurt were wearing safety helmets? Has he not been far too complacent about these terrible tragedies?

Mr. Nugent: I have not been complacent. The figures I have show that 40 per cent. of motor-cycle riders now wear helmets as compared with 1952 when scarcely any helmets were worn. That is very useful progress.

Driving Licences

Mr. Hyde: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will exempt holders of Northern Ireland driving licences of long standing, who transfer their residence to Great Britain, from the obligation to undergo driving tests before being issued with driving licences in this country.

Mr. Nugent: My hon. Friend's proposal would require legislation. Whilst I do not think we could go as far as he proposes, we consider that there is a case for reciprocal recognition of driving tests, and will bear the possibility of legislation in mind.

Glasgow Schools Excursion Services

Mr. Hannan: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what consideration he has given to the letter sent to him by the Committee of the Glasgow Schools Excursion Services concerning the travelling difficulties of 500 pupils to the Continent at Easter; and what was the nature of his reply.

Mr. Nugent: We have received a letter from an individual member of the committee. This was referred to the British Transport Commission as the complaint was a matter for it, and I understand it has proved possible to clear up the difficulty.

Mr. Hannan: May I thank the Minister for that reply and give him the assurance that it will create widespread satisfaction?

Long-Distance Lorries (Heaters)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the difficulties caused by cold weather to drivers of long-distance lorries, with adverse effects upon the standards of driving; and if he will introduce regulations which will lead at a reasonably early date to the provision of heaters on lorries being made compulsory.

Mr. Nugent: I think this would be better dealt with by negotiation between employer and employed, rather than by statutory regulations.

Sir F. Medlicott: Does not my hon. Friend think that this amenity would be very greatly appreciated by lorry drivers and that many of them are not likely to get it unless the provision of it is made compulsory?

Mr. Nugent: I would not agree with my hon. Friend. The matter is quite capable of negotiation, but it would not be easy to enforce as a regulation. It would be better dealt with in that way.

Mr. Lindgren: While we accept the point made by the Minister that the matter is far better dealt with by negotiation between the workers' and employers' organisations, may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman appreciates that vast numbers of these lorry drivers are unorganised now that they are back with private enterprise and that therefore the evasion of regulations and of the requirements of regulations is greater than it was when they were operating a public service?

Mr. Nugent: I would not accept the implication in the end of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. I would put it the other way round. I would be very hesitant to say that a vehicle should be taken off the road if its body heater was not in action. I do not think the matter is suitable for regulations.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Is my hon. Friend aware that in most lorries the engine is either forward or under the


floor, and that the complaint has been that the cabs are too hot, not that they are too cold?

Annual Licences (Issue)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will consider allowing motorists to take out an annual licence at any time during the year as is the practice with the British Broadcasting Corporation's listener's licence.

Mr. Nugent: This suggestion is already being examined along with other possible changes in the licensing procedure. It is too early to say whether it will prove practicable.

Mr. Johnson: While appreciating that reply, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary is himself a motorist? If he is, has he ever suffered with his fellow taxpayers, who stand in queues at post offices during the first week of every New Year? Will he use his best efforts to get a change made at the earliest possible moment?

Mr. Nugent: I appreciate that great advantages would flow from this change. We all know of the queues, particularly in January. Other authorities have to be consulted, and we have not completed those consultations yet.

Committee on Administrative Tribunals (Recommendations)

Mr. Marlowe: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what extent the recommendations contained in paragraphs 347 and 350 of the Report of the Committee on Administrative Tribunals are accepted by his Department.

Mr. Nugent: Substantially, this recommendation can be accepted by my right hon. Friend. Advice given by the officials of my Department, technical or otherwise, could not be included, but, other than that, factual evidence obtained after an inquiry will in future be submitted to the parties before a decision is reached.

Mr. Marlowe: If the Government have accepted this principle as my hon. Friend says, why have they not done so in the case of the Kingston By-pass inquiry, to which reference has been made? Was not the evil aimed at in a particular paragraph the growing practice of Ministers

considering factual representations behind closed doors after an inquiry had been closed without any opportunity being given for cross-examination or comment by interested parties? Since in the Kingston By-pass case the Minister over-ruled the inspector, is it not clear that he must have heard further evidence or representations, and that interested parties have not had an opportunity of commenting? Why in these circumstances is my hon. Friend flouting the undertaking given by the Leader of the House?

Mr. Nugent: I am not doing so. The imagination of my hon. and learned Friend has run away with him. We had no additional factual evidence before us other than that which was produced at the inquiry; but, in considering whether the public interest lay in having one form of design at the junction rather than another, we decided that the inspector's conclusion was wrong and that therefore we should have an underpass.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL AVIATION

Wales (Services)

Mr. C. Hughes: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware of the lack of progress in civil aviation in Wales; and what steps he is taking to enable the Principality to have regular air services.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Neave): My right hon. Friend does not accept that there has been a lack of progress in civil aviation in Wales. He is anxious to encourage it further, but the airlines themselves must decide which services are economically justified. My right hon. Friend has already approved regular services by Cambrian Airways linking South Wales with many parts of England, the Channel Islands, Dublin and the Continent. The development of these services depends on the support given them by the travelling public.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that there is continued neglect of the Principality by B.E.A.? Will he and his right hon. Friend bring appropriate pressure to bear on this public Corporation so that some little progress can be made in Wales, many parts of which have no regular air service?

Mr. Neave: My right hon. Friend has this point very much in mind and I am glad to tell the hon. Member that I understand that negotiations between B.E.A. and Cambrian Airways are in progress and are likely to result in B.E.A. taking a greater interest in Cambrian's activities.

Belfast Airport, Nutts Corner

Mr. Knox Cunningham: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether a decision has yet been reached as to the future of Belfast Airport at Nutts Corner, County Antrim; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Neave: My right hon. Friend has decided that Nutts Corner should continue to be the main civil airport in Northern Ireland. A number of possible sites have been surveyed, but a suitable alternative to Nutts Corner could be provided only at an unjustifiable cost. The Government of Northern Ireland have been kept fully informed throughout.

Mr. Knox Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which will he welcomed by many people in South Antrim. Can he say how much money will be expended on the improvements to Nutts Corner Airport? Will he do everything in his power to expedite this work because of the present employment situation in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Neave: I think that a new terminal area, that is to say, a new terminal building and an apron, will be required. At a rough estimate, that will cost about £500,000. I cannot say exactly how we shall proceed in this matter, but it is now under discussion.

Mr. Hyde: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what plans he has for providing an alternative airport in Northern Ireland to Nutts Corner when aircraft have to be diverted on account of bad weather.

Mr. Neave: An alternate aerodrome to Nutts Corner already exists at Alder-grove. On only 1 per
cent. of occasions are aircraft prevented from landing at one or other of these aerodromes through bad weather. The possibility of providing a second alternate in Northern Ireland is now being considered.

Mr. Chichester-Clark: Has my hon. Friend considered the possibility of Eglinton and Ballykelly, near Londonderry, both of which are in my constituency?

Mr. Neave: We have Ballykelly under consideration at the moment, but 1 should warn my hon. Friend that there are difficulties there about the installation of navigational aids and other matters.

Medium-range Jet Aircraft

Mr. Hunter: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether a decision has yet been reached regarding the future requirements of British European Airways Corporation for medium-range jet airliners; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now report what decision has been reached concerning future requirements of British European Airways for medium-range jet aircraft; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when he expects to make a statement on the negotiations he has been conducting with a number of aircraft manufacturing companies on the projected jet airliner for the British Overseas Airways Corporation.

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now make a further statement on the negotiations between British European Airways and the aircraft manufacturers regarding the medium jet airliners.

Mr. Neave: The proposed order for medium-range jet aircraft by British European Airways is still being considered. My right hon. Friend will make a statement as soon as possible.

Mr. Hunter: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary impress upon the Government the fact that B.E.A. has already chosen an aircraft for its efficiency and safety? Will he also impress upon them that B.E.A. should have freedom of choice? Further, is he aware that this delay is causing uncertainty in the aircraft industry, which, unfortunately, is already facing the problem of redundancy?

Mr. Neave: My right hon. Friend is very well aware of the importance of this matter both to B.E.A. and the aircraft industry as a whole, and I can assure the House that as soon as he returns to duty it will have his immediate attention.

Mr. Skeffington: Does the Minister realise, apart from all other interests, that workers in many aircraft factories are very concerned about their future? Apart from other considerations, does not this fact make it imperative to have a very quick announcement?

Mr. Neave: I shall certainly call my right hon. Friend's attention to that matter. I do not think that I have anything further to add at this moment.

Mr. Mikardo: In view of the six months' delay which has already taken place, which the Corporation can ill afford, in competition with its overseas competitors, and also in view of the serious charge made by the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir A. V. Harvey), that in the course of these negotiations there has been double-dealing by some of the aircraft manufacturing companies, will the hon. Member lay a White Paper setting out the course of these negotiations, after the decision has been made?

Mr. Neave: I will draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to that suggestion.

Mr. Rankin: Will the Minister represent urgently to those who are now considering this decision the fact that B.E.A., after long examination of the position, has decided that the DH.121 is the best instrument for its continued success? Will those who decide the issue take that fact into consideration when making their decision, and grant the Corporation a free choice in this matter?

Mr. Neave: I have said that the matter is still under consideration, and that my right hon. Friend is well aware of the points which have just been put forward. I would ask the House to be patient in this matter.

Mr. Beswick: Does not the Minister agree that this very frustrating delay and time- and energy-consuming argument, into which the Corporation has been led, places an intolerable burden upon those who have the responsibility of operating

the airline? Can we be assured that after all this delay and argument there will emerge from the aircraft manufacturing industry a more efficient construction unit?

Mr. Neave: I do not think that I can add anything to what has been said, and I am sure that note will be taken of the points that hon. Members have made.

Leuchars—London (Service)

Mr. G. M. Thomson: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will consult with the British European Airways Corporation and the local authorities concerned, with a view to investigating the possibility of a regular air service between Leuchars aerodrome and London.

Mr. Neave: I understand that B.E.A. have considered this possibility and have decided that such a service would he quite uneconomic.

Mr. Thomson: Will the Minister reconsider this matter? Is he aware that this proposal is being made seriously for the first time and that it is very important for Dundee in its efforts to attract the new industries which are required?

Mr. Neave: I sympathise with the wish of Perth and Dundee to have local air services. My right hon. Friend will willingly consider any proposal put to him for such services, but he has no power to direct B.E.A. or any other airline to operate them.

Airways Corporations and Independent Companies (Passengers)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he is aware that the percentage increases in passengers carried by the British Overseas Airways Corporation, British European Airways and the independent companies between 1953 and 1957 are 26, 47 and 190, respectively, and that the increase in the business of the last named operators is due to the preferential treatment given to them by the Government; and what steps he proposes to take to prevent further damage to the business of the public corporations.

Mr. Neave: The correct percentage figures are 60, 69 and 253, respectively. My right hon. Friend does not accept the


inference which the hon. Member draws in the last part of his Question.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary aware that many other people accept the inference which is quite a direct one arising from the Question, and that the figures he gives are much more serious than those which I offer? Does not he realise that to many of us these stem from the directive issued by one of his predecessors in 1952 altering the functions and status of the Air Transport Advisory Council in favour of the independent operators? Is he aware that in view of this remarkable increase it is quite wrong that the shipping interests, which are the financial backers of the independent operators, should be represented on the boards of the two public Corporations and also on the licensing body, the Air Transport Advisory Council? Does he realise that B.E.A.—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] This is the speech I did not get an opportunity to deliver in the recent debate—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member cannot compensate for his bad fortune then at Question time today.

Mr. Rankin: Just one concluding point, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Joint Parliamentary Secretary realise that for the first time B.E.A. is complaining about the injustice now being done to it?

Mr. Neave: My answer to the hon. Gentleman's speech is that I am glad to hear his views on the flatter. I am sorry that he was not able to put them forward on a previous occasion. These figures date from 1953. Until then the traffic carried by the independent airlines on scheduled services was very small. We are talking about figures which relate to established services by the Corporation as a whole. Judging this matter by the number of passengers is very misleading, because many of the passengers carried by the independent companies on scheduled services are carried for short distances. When inclusive tours are taken into account, it is much more accurate to judge the percentages for passenger mileage, and that would give in 1957 the independents' total share of the traffic as 10·2 per cent.

Mr. P. Williams: Would not my hon. Friend agree that even then these figures

are still totally misleading in that the general traffic being carried by the independent companies is newly created traffic and it is not a question of deflecting it from one line or another; and also it is a lower revenue type of traffic as well?

Mr. Neave: My hon. Friend is perfectly right. My right hon. Friend has taken care that this increase should not be at the expense of the Corporation whose established services have received adequate protection from the A.T.A.C.

Mr. Strauss: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that the view he has just expressed is diametrically opposed to the view expressed officially by the British European Airways Corporation in its last Annual Report, where it is definitely stated that some of these new tourist services run by independent operators are seriously damaging the services provided by B.E.A.? In view of that fact, will he at least reconsider the directive given by the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to the A.T.A.C. which is causing so much damage to British aviation as a whole?

Mr. Neave: The right hon. Gentleman raised this point during a recent debate and I answered him then, pointing out that in the B.E.A. Report it is stated that the Corporation had no complaint about the impartiality of the A.T.A.C. As I pointed out, it has been acting under its proper directions. That being the case, and since in the calendar year 1957 B.E.A. has made a profit of over £1 million, I do not think that we can seriously say that it has suffered any damage.

Pan-American Aircraft (Incident)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware that a Pan-American passenger aircraft from New York, which arrived over London Airport at 9 a.m. on 30th January, was kept circling overhead for six hours, finally landing at Hurn about 3 p.m., that the passengers were then kept in the aeroplane for a further three hours, that only three Customs officers were on duty to deal with some thirty aeroplanes, and that only after special representations to the station master was a train made available to take these passengers and others up to


London at 10.30 p.m.; and whether, in view of the importance of dealing with long-distance aircraft arrivals more expeditiously and courteously in fog conditions, he will investigate this incident with a view to urgent remedial action.

Mr. Neave: I am informed that the aircraft "Clipper 100" arrived in the London area just before 11 a.m. and circled for about four hours because the pilot hoped for an improvement in the weather over London Airport. Before it arrived at Hum, six additional Customs officers were on duty there. Arrangements for dealing with passengers on landing after a diversion and for their subsequent transport are the responsibility of the operators, in this case Pan-American Airways. My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the officials of my Department at Hum did all they could for the comfort of the passengers, but he will keep the matter under review.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that, after these passengers had been circulating in the air for many hours, when they arrived at Hum they could not get out of the aeroplane for lack of ladders; and that they were then delayed for several hours trying to get through the Customs? As we know, fog is a very frequent occurrence in this country. Would it not he better to have an emergency operation for dealing with people at these diversionary airports? Finally, is my hon. Friend aware that among the distinguished passengers was the producer of Cat on a Hot Tin Roof "?

Mr. Neave: My information is not at all in accordance with what my hon. Friend has said. It is that the Pan-American London airport traffic manager said that the reason the passengers were left on board the aircraft was for their own comfort, that they were provided with refreshments and that there was no shortage of aircraft steps.

Aircraft (Diversions to Prestwick)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation how many aircraft were diverted to Prestwick on 30th and 31st January owing to the closing down of London Airport; how many passengers were involved in the diversions; and what extra staff were engaged.

Mr. Neave: London Airport was not closed. Twelve aircraft, carrying 372 passengers, were diverted to Prestwick. No additional staff were employed by my right hon. Friend's Department.

Mr. Rankin: Does the Minister recognise once again the debt we owe to Prestwick? While we in Scotland welcome the decision now to go ahead with the 500-yard extension of the runway in order to handle Britannias, can the hon. Gentleman tell us when the 2,000-yard extension to deal with the turbo-jet airliners of the 1960s will be commenced so that Prestwick can still have at least a secondary position to London Airport?

Mr. Neave: I have answered the hon. Member's Question. If he wishes to ask further details about the runway at Prestwick and will put down another Question, I shall be glad to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Area Boards (Emoluments)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation the average annual rate of the emoluments payable to the chairmen and members of the railway area boards in 1956 and at the present time; and when the last change in such rates took place.

Mr. Nugent: I am informed by the British Transport Commission that when its Accounts for 1957 are published they will show that the total amount paid in fees to members of its area boards was substantially the same as in 1956. The scale of fees has not changed since the boards were set up.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for that reply which is more forthcoming than the replies we have had on the last two Wednesdays. Can the hon. Gentleman state why his right hon. Friend has been so secretive over this matter? Questions have been pressed upon him regarding the fees paid and only now is he willing to give them and to allay the suspicions which have been held in many quarters that these fees have been increased.

Mr. Nugent: I do not know how those suspicions arose. My right hon. Friend did say when he was last at the Dispatch Box that if the hon. Member would put


this Question on the Order Paper, he would give him the answer. In fact at that time we did not have the information which I have now given.

Automatic Warning Control

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if, following the inquest on the train disaster at Lewisham, he will now suggest to the British Transport Commission that automatic train control should be established on all sections of British Railways where it is not installed and so relieve train drivers of their present heavy responsibility.

Mr. Nugent: The British Transport Commission has in hand the installation of automatic warning control on all the main routes of British Railways, and the Chairman has assured us that the Commission will do all it can to accelerate the programme. But automatic warning control, although a valuable help to safety, cannot entirely remove the element of human responsibility.

Mr. Janner: May I thank the hon. Member for that reply? Will he bear in mind, particularly since the Dagenham tragedy which has created even greater anxiety than prevailed before—and that was bad enough—that every expedition should be exercised to produce every mechanical device possible to minimise the grave responsibility upon human beings in control of and driving these trains, so that they may have an opportunity to make use of such devices in the exercise of this dangerous responsibility?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir and that is just what the Commission is doing.

Mr. Popplewell: Will the Minister express to the British Transport Commission the disappointment of this House at the rate of progress in this matter? I think it correct to say that in reply to a Question a week or so ago the Minister indicated that only about 1,000 miles of track had been laid. This is a very small percentage of the running track. In view of the long time the Commission has been engaged on this experiment, is not this rate of progress exceedingly slow?

Mr. Nugent: I think I should say in fairness to the Commission that A.T.C.

is only one important aid to improved safety. Colour light signalling and track circuiting are of equal importance. The Commission is making good progress and accelerating considerably over its original programme.

Fog Conditions

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will appoint a committee to inquire into train operation during periods of fog and to report as a matter of urgency with recommendations to ensure the safety of the passengers and railwaymen.

Mr. Nugent: I think we should await the reports of the inspecting officers of railways on the accidents at Lewisham and Dagenham.

Mr. Ernest Davies: While appreciating that reply, may I ask whether the Parliamentary Secretary realises that the appointment of such a committee would be no reflection at all upon the operating staff? In view of the large number of accidents which have occurred during foggy weather, in particular the last two tragic ones in close succession, would not such an appointment assist in reassuring the public that everything possible is being done to preserve their safety during dense fog?

Mr. Nugent: I accept, of course, the statement that in foggy weather there is always extra strain and responsibility on all forms of transport, rail included. The Chairman of the British Transport Commission has already written to general managers and chairmen of area boards asking for special vigilance in the light of those two unfortunate happenings. In the circumstances, we had better wait to see just what the causes were before we consider whether or not it is desirable to have any further inquiry.

Mr. J. Harrison: Will the Joint Parliamentary Secretary also bear in mind that on every foggy evening millions of people are conveyed from London alone? Does not he consider that the two recent accidents, though very serious in themselves, represent a very small number, in proportion to the millions of people conveyed and the many foggy nights we are accustomed to have in this country.

Mr. Nugent: The hon. Member is quite right. Hon. Members have been asking me about road accidents. If the rail record is set against the road record it does not look too bad.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Convention on Stowaways

Mr. Younger: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation why Her Majesty's Government did not support the Convention on Stowaways, drafted at the tenth session of the Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Law in Brussels.

Mr. Neave: Her Majesty's Government did not support the Convention on Stowaways drafted at the tenth session of the Diplomatic Conference on Maritime Law because they considered that the Convention would be less satisfactory in practice than the existing arrangements.

Mr. Younger: Is the Minister aware that that is an extremely uninformative Answer? Is any principle at stake here? In fact, was there not a considerable majority in favour of the Convention and were we in the minority position?

Mr. Neave: I cannot answer the last part of the supplementary question, but I will look it up and send the answer to the right hon. Member. There are technical immigration considerations involved which are properly a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. We considered that the Convention would be likely to result in an increase rather than a reduction in the number of stowaways coming to this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE

United States Armed Forces, United Kingdom

Mr. Hale: asked the Minister of Defence how many United States armed forces and how many United States citizens, related to or employed in an auxiliary capacity to the armed forces, were stationed in Great Britain at the last most convenient date for computation.

The Minister of Defence (Mr. Duncan Sandys): About 36,000 members of the United States armed forces are stationed In this country, together with about 500

United States civilians employed
in an auxiliary capacity. I have no precise information about the number of their relatives here.

Mr. Hale: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that, while we greatly appreciate the help of our American allies in the years that are past and the very high standard of conduct of their troops here, a growing body of opinion is coming to the conclusion that their presence now adds to our difficulties rather than detracts from them and adds to the danger to this country, and a growing body of opinion finds it difficult to understand the attitude of the Germans to our troops there in relation to our attitude to American troops here?

Mr. Sandys: All I can say is that the strength of the United States Air Force and its dispersal around the world, including its bases in this country, are undoubtedly the most decisive factor today for the preservation of peace. If this involves some inconvenience, I think we have got to put up with it.

Oral Answers to Questions — SUMMIT CONFERENCE

Mr. Brockway: asked the Prime Minister which nations he proposes to suggest in his reply to Mr. Bulganin's letter should be invited to a Summit Conference.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
As I have already informed the House, I cannot anticipate the terms of the Prime Minister's reply to Mr. Bulganin's letter of 8th January.

Mr. Brockway: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the Press Conference which the Prime Minister gave at New Delhi and which was reported in the Times of India on 12th January? May I quote from it?
Asked for his reaction to Mr. Bulganin's second letter, a summary of which he had just received by cable, Mr. Macmillan indicated a marked preference for a Summit Conference of five or six Heads of State.
If that is the case, will there be any indication in the reply to Mr. Bulganin that in addition to America, France, Britain and Russia, other States are to be invited to attend?

Mr. Butler: I am fully aware of all the wise sayings of my right hon. Friend, but I am not prepared to give a forecast of his reply to Mr. Bulganin's letter.

Mr. Shinwell: Is it not taking a frightfully long time to reply to this letter? I understand that the Prime Minister has indicated his readiness to agree to a Summit Conference after the necessary preparations have been made. President Eisenhower has done the same. Everybody agrees that there ought to be a conference. What stands in the way of a reply to Mr. Bulganin's letter? What is the cause of the trouble? Is it because the Prime Minister is absent from this country? Are not the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues in touch with the Prime Minister in order to ascertain his views?

Mr. Butler: We have regular contact with my right hon. Friend. Some letters take longer to answer than others.

Mr. Bevan: Is it not a fact that we are to expect this reply next week?

Mr. Butler: I cannot give a definite date for the reply.

Mr. Bevan: Was not the House told last week by the Minister of State that we could expect a reply in a week or a fortnight? As that was stated last week, will not the fortnight expire next week?

Mr. Butler: The right hon. Gentleman is singularly perceptive. I think we may draw legitimate conclusions from his analysis.

Mr. Bevan: Did the Minister of State mislead the House last week? He said that we could have the reply in a week or a fortnight.

Mr. Butler: The Minister of State used the expression
In the next week or so."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 27th January, 1958; Vol. 581, c. 10.]

Mr. Bevan: No.

Mr. Butler: I shall be very glad to refresh my memory of what he said and then compare notes with the right hon. Gentleman. We can get the exact text of the Minister's statement.

Mr. Shinwell: Is there not a danger that Marshal Bulganin may send another letter before he receives a reply to this one?

Mr. Butler: In fact, Mr. Bulganin has already sent another letter to the United States Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTIONS (TRANSFER)

Mr. Chetwynd: On a point of order. May I raise a point about the transfer of Question No. 90 from the Minister of Defence, to whom it was originally set down, to the Secretary of State for Air? It concerns the establishment of missile bases in the North-East. I notice from the Order Paper that almost similar Questions are set down at Nos. 52 and 53 and are still left with the Minister of Defence. I should like to ask for an explanation why my Question has been postponed. Is there any recorded case of a Question being transferred to a Minister who will reply earlier than the reply would otherwise have been given? Are not all these transfers of Questions, putting them right at the end, carried out because there is then very little chance of the hon. Member being given an answer? May I be given an explanation?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid that I cannot satisfy the hon. Member because I have nothing to do with these transfers. The most helpful suggestion which I can make to him is that he should take the matter up with the Minister concerned, to whom the Question was addressed, and seek an explanation from him.

BILL PRESENTED

HOUSE OF COMMONS (REDISTRIBUTION OF SEATS)

Bill to amend the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act, 1949, presented by Mr. R. A. Butler; supported by the Prime Minister, Mr. Maclay, Mr. H. Brooke, and Mr. Renton; read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 66.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

RENT ACT, 1957 (AMENDMENT) (CONTINUATION OF TENANCIES)

Mr. C. W. Gibson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable tenants of dwellinghouses decontrolled under section eleven of the Rent Act, 1957, to retain possession of those dwelling-houses for terms not exceeding three years at rents to be determined by rent tribunals and otherwise upon the terms and conditions applicable to their tenancies before that Act came into force; and for purposes connected therewith.
It is the tradition of the House that an hon. Member does not make an attempt to break the rules of procedure and that he keeps his speech short on such occasions as this. I will try to do so, although I think that it will be very difficult.
My proposed Bill does not get rid of decontrol; I think that is unfortunate, but it is inevitable. It provides means whereby the tenants of decontrolled houses can have a little more sense of justice in their dealings with their landlord than they have at the moment, as is being expressed all over the country in all the newspapers and in the correspondence which hon. Members are receiving.
I do not want to go into many figures about the number of houses affected, but in the London area the problem is very serious. For example, over 25,000 houses in the Borough of Wandsworth and over 13,700 in the Borough of Lambeth are decontrolled. As I find week after week, when I meet my constituents, all these tenants are being worried by the fact that they have received notices to quit next October and are not in a fair bargaining position with their landlords to negotiate new agreements.
What applies to London applies to many other towns throughout the country. All of us are hearing of the great distress which the issue of these notices by owners is causing. Owners are quite entitled to issue them under the Rent Act, but it is causing great distress to many thousands of families throughout Britain. I hope that the House will take this opportunity to give these tenants a chance to negotiate on a little more opal basis than exists at the moment.
The Minister cannot say that he was not warned about this, because during the

discussions on the Rent Bill, both in the House and in Committee, it was pointed out that the tenants of decontrolled houses were in a completely unfair position to negotiate with their landlords. I remember the newspapers in London, particularly the Star, emphasising that point and calling attention to the injustice The Times had an editorial on the subject on 27th January last year. Discussing the proposed changes in that section of the Bill dealing with decontrolled houses. The Times wrote:
Such a change might not suffice to meet the special difficulties of London, where there is a real danger that decontrol, even deferred for 18 months, will leave tenants exposed to exploitation.
That is what is happening. Tenants are being grossly exploited in many cases by the owners of the houses in which they live.
While I have a list of cases that have occurred in my own division, I will select one that reached me only this week. It concerns a tenant whose rent, hitherto, has been £39 a year, inclusive of rates—a rent which, I admit, was a bit on the low side. He has now been served by the owner of the property with a notice to quit in October, and an offer of an agreement at a rent of £100 net, plus rates, plus interior repairs and decorations—something that he has never done in the whole fifty years that he has been in the house.
I do not believe that anybody can justify that kind of thing happening. I do not believe that it was the intention of this House that it should happen, but it is happening all over London. I have only today received evidence of what is occurring on the north side of London. In the Times and Guardian published in Hendon, there is a report headed:
M.P. to lead delegation on Edgware rents.
The article goes on to say:
For two months, 77 residents of the Deans-way and Farm Road area of Mill Hill have lived in fear owing to the implementation of the Rent Act. Many of them have brought up families, and have made their roots in Mill Hill, and the prospect of having to leave their homes, with no prospect of having anywhere to go, has filled them with alarm and dread of the future.
That is in the highly-respectable and, at any rate in the past, Tory Mill Hill. I read on:
In their alarm they banded themselves together and formed a Tenants' Association


to protest to their landlords, and they were backed up by their Member of Parliament, Mr. Charles I. Orr-Ewing…
Later, in the same report—

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman is referring to an hon. Member of this House, he should refer to him by his constituency.

Mr. Gibson: I am quoting from a local paper, published this week, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I understand.

Mr. Gibson: I want to quote only one sentence from the report of the speech made by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing) at a meeting that these tenants held. He said:
It was not feasible…that thousands should be turned out of their homes
and he added that he would lead a delegation of M.P.s to the landlord's agents. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where is he?"] I therefore hope that the hon. Member will support the First Reading of this little Bill, and will back us on Second Reading.
It is significant that the very issue that is raised by this Bill—

Mr. Robert Jenkins: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I know that he would wish to be fair to the House in quoting my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Air. In fact, what the Under-Secretary did was to organise certain hon. Members, who saw these particular landlords last Friday in this House, and that did, in fact, effect a substantial increase in the rents.

Mr. Gibson: I did not want to quote at too great length for fear of annoying the House—

Mr. Jenkins: A decrease, I should have said.

Mr. Gibson: I was, of course, aware that the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) was one of the hon. Members who was referred to as being in the group of M.P.s who would like to try to help the tenants in question. That being so, let him help us to get this Bill through. It is a Bill that will give all tenants in these decontrolled houses a little more sense of justice and fairness than they have at present.
I hope, therefore, that without having to spend too much time on it, the House will agree that this is an aspect of the Rent Act, which, although attention was called to it while it was before the House, has resulted in tremendous hardship to many worthy families. I know, from my own experience, that it has caused complete heartbreak to many people in my constituency who thought that, although they were paying much higher rents than the average, they were safe for the rest of their lives in their places near Clapham Common. They now know that they are not. They have all been served with these notices, and some of them, including the tenant to whom I have referred, are old-age pensioners, who are quite unable to find the additional money for the stiff increase in rent that is being demanded.
Therefore, I submit that, in fairness to its own reputation and as a matter of justice to the people, the House ought to give this Bill its First Reading, and so help to provide machinery whereby these people can get consideration of their cases by an unprejudiced and unbiased body that has been tried and tested in our social machinery and has proved successful. Let the rent tribunals settle what the rents shall be in these disputed cases.

Mr. Graham Page: I rise to oppose the Motion. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame."] It is only a week since the House rejected a similar Motion moved by the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis) by the substantial majority of 65. The Motion before us today can scarcely be anything more than party political propaganda, and I am surprised that the hon. Member for Clapham (Mr. Gibson) lends himself to this manœuvre.
I recognise quite well the sincerity of his feelings on this subject, although I think that they are wrong, but he does no good service to himself, or those for whom he speaks, to lend himself to this sort of manœuvre in relation to a Ten Minutes Rule Bill only a week after a similar manœuvre was rejected.

Mr. Arthur Lewis: What about the hon. Member's interest?

Mr. Page: If he is sincere about this, I would remind him that the rules of procedure do not oblige him to make a ten-minute speech on the Motion, and then


have it rejected, as it is bound to be rejected today. He is at liberty to present the Bill, to you, Mr. Speaker, without the necessity of a propaganda speech—

Mr. Norman Dodds: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not an honourable custom of this House that any Member speaking should declare his interest at the outset?

Mr. Speaker: Although no rule is involved, it is a custom generally observed in this House for hon. Members who speak on a matter in which they have a personal interest to declare that interest beforehand, lest their motives should be misconstrued.

Mr. Page: I have no interest to declare, beyond the fact that the attic flat of my own house is let furnished—if that is an interest. It was not controlled even before the Act came in. This is evidently another smear campaign from the other side.
Because this is merely a party political manœuvre, I hope that the House will, if for that reason alone, reject it with a substantial majority. The hon. Member for Clapham may think that he is doing a service to tenants. In fact, he is doing exactly the opposite. Threats from him and his colleagues about repealing the Rent Act and attempts by Ten Minutes Rule Bills to amend the Act have caused many landlords to decide against letting and to decide for selling.
So far as the number of landlords who desire to sell has increased over the past few months, the party opposite is wholly and entirely to blame. Furthermore, persistent statements by hon. Members opposite that rents will be doubled and trebled have been an encouragement to many landlords to ask high rents and

a spur to tenants to agree precipitately to those high rents.

Hon. Members opposite and their propaganda machine have entirely misled the country on this matter, and it is perhaps opportune to put on record the average increase in rents in London, an area with which the hon. Member for Clapham is particularly concerned. I quote from the Financial Times of last week, which reports the Tenants' Protection Council as follows:
The Act decontrolled 190,000 rented houses and flats in the London area. The Tenants' Protection Council estimates that about half these tenants have received new leases with which they are satisfied, roughly another 25,000–30,000 have received new leases but think that the rents are too high, while another 65,000–70,000 have not yet arranged new leases at all…. On the average the large companies have increased rents by 40–50 per cent.…the fact that existing tenants are not being charged the full market rent. This is estimated to be about three times the gross value…

The Bill would propose to put rents before a rent tribunal. I presume that such a tribunal would decide on the market value—I cannot see what other decision it could take. If it decided on a market value, greater hardship would be imposed on tenants than any resulting from leases arranged by private treaty. Socialist propaganda plus this manœuvre of Ten Minutes Rule Bills are creating great difficulties for tenants in arranging leases by private treaty and playing straight into the hands of some greedy landlords. I ask the House to reject the Motion.

Question put pursuant to Standing Order No. 12 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 195, Noes 234.

Division No. 35.]
AYES
[3.55 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Bowles, F. G.
Collins, V.J, (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Boyd, T. C.
Cove, W. G.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brockway, A. F.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Awbery, S. S.
Brown, Rt. Hon, George (Belper)
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Balfour, A.
Burton, Miss F. E.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Beswick, Frank
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Deer, G.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Callaghan, L. J.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Blackburn, F.
Carmichael, J.
Delargy, H. J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Champion, A. J.
Diamond, John


Blyton, W. R.
Chetwynd, G. R.
Dodds, N. N.


Boardman, H.
Clunie, J.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Coldrick, W.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)




Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Randall, H. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lewis, Arthur
Rankin, John


Fernyhough, E.
Lindgren, G. S.
Redhead, E. C.


Finch, H. J.
Lipton, Marcus
Reeves, J.


Fletcher, Eric
Logan, D. G.
Reid, William


Foot, D. M.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Rhodes, H.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
MacColl, J. E.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
McGhee, H. G.
Ross, William


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
McGovern, J.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Gooch, E. G.
McInnes, J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McLeavy, Frank
Skeffington, A. M.


Grey, C. F.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mahon, Simon
Sorensen, R. W.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Hale, Leslie
Mason, Roy
Sparks, J. A.


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mayhew, C. P.
Steele, T.


Hannan, W.
Mellish, R. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mikardo, Ian
Storehouse, John


Hastings, S.
Mitchison, G. R.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Hayman, F. H.
Monslow, W.
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Heatey, Denis
Moody, A. S.
Stross, Dr. Barnett (Stoke-on-Trent, C.)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Sylvester, G. O.


Herbison, Miss M.
Mort, D. L.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Moss, R.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Holman, P.
Moyle, A.
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Holmes, Horace
Mulley, F. W.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Houghton, Douglas
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Timmons, J.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Usborne, H. C.


Hoy, J. H.
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Viant, S. P.


Hubbard, T. F.
Oram, A. E.
Warbey, W. N.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Orbach, M.
Watkins, T. E.


Hunter, A. E.
Oswald, T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Padley, W. E.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paget, R. T.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Paling, Rt. Hn. W. (Dearne Valley)
Wilcock, Group Capt C. A. B.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Willey, Frederick


Janner, B.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Williams, David (Neath)


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Pargiter, G. A.
Williams, Rev, Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Hlbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Parkin, B. T.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pearson, A.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Peart, T. F.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Pentland N.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Woof, R. E.


Jones, Jack (Rotherham)
Popplewell, E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Prentice, R. E.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Price J. T. (Westhoughton)



Kenyon, C.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Probert, A. R.
Mr. Percy Wells and Mr. Gibson


Lawson, G. M.
Proctor, W. T.





NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry
du Cann, E. D. L.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Brooman-White, R. C.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)


Alport, C. J. M.
Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Duncan, Sir James


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bryan, P.
Duthie, W. S.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Elliott, R.W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)


Arbuthnot, John
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn


Armstrong, C. W.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Farey-Jones, F. W.


Atkins, H. E.
Campbell, Sir David
Fell, A.


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Carr, Robert
Fisher, Nigel


Baldwin, A. E.
Cary, Sir Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, C.


Balniel, Lord
Chichester-Clark, R.
Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)


Barber, Anthony
Cole, Norman
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)


Barlow, Sir John
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Freeth, Denzil


Barter, John
Cooke, Robert
Gammans, Lady


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cooper, A. E.
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Cooper-Key, E. M.
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Gibson-Watt, D.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Glover, D.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Glyn, Col. Richard H.


Bidgood, J. C.
Cunningham, Knox
Godber, J. B.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Currie, G. B. H.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan


Bingham, R. M.
Dance, J. C. G.
Goodhart, Philip


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Davidson, Viscountess
Gower, H. R.


Bishop, F. P.
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Graham, Sir Fergus


Body, R. F.
D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Deedes, W. F.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Digby, Simon Wingfield
Green, A.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Gresham Cooke, R


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col, W. H.
Drayson, G. B.
Grimond, J.







Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Longden, Gilbert
Ridsdale, J. E.


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Robertson, Sir David


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Roper, Sr Harold


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Russell, R. S.


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
McKibbin, Alan
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Sharples, R. C.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Shepherd, William


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Speir, R. M.


Hay, John
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Maddan, Martin
Stevens, Geoffrey


Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir Malcolm


Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Markham, Major Sir Frank.
Storey, S.


Hirst, Geoffrey
Mathew, R.
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maude, Angus
Studholme, Sir Henry


Holt, A. F.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hope, Lord John
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Hornby, R. P.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Moore, Sir Thomas
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Mott-Radclyffe Sir Charles
Temple, John M.


Hughes Hallett, Vine-Admiral J.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Neave, Airey
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Nicholls, Harmar
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Hyde, Montgomery
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Iremonger, T. L.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Oakshott, H. D.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Jennings, Sir Roland (Hallam)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.
Vane, W. M. F.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian (Weston-S-Mare)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Kaberry, D.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Kershaw, J. A.
Partridge, E.
Wade, D. W.


Kimball, M.
Peel, W. J.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Peyton, J. W. W.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Lambton, Viscount
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Wall, Major Patrick


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Pike, Miss Mervyn
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Leavey, J. A.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Leburn, W. G.
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Pott, H. P.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Price, David (Eastleigh)
Wood, Hon. R.


Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Profumo, J. D.
Woollam, John Victor


Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Ramsden, J. E.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Llnstead, Sir H. N.
Redmayne, M.



Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Remnant, Hon. P.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Lloyd, Rt. Hon. Selwyn (Wirral)
Renton, D. L. M.
Mr. Page and Sir Peter Agnew

Mr. John Hay: I wish to raise a point of order with you, Mr. Speaker. This is the second time within a week that we have had a private Member's Motion for leave to introduce a Bill for which the only notice which the House has received has been less than one day. Although it is within the rules of the House that Motions of this kind may be debated under Standing Order No. 12 at short notice, is it not in accordance with the practice of the House, and certainly so far as Government Motions are concerned, that the House is entitled to and expects longer notice of Motions of this kind?
Is it possible for the House to be protected against Motions of this kind being placed on the Order Paper late at night for debate, and possibly a Division, the following afternoon, without having had some better opportunity to consider

such a Motion and for us to make our arrangements?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member raises a point on which the Standing Orders give no guidance at all. A Motion of this sort, which is taken at the commencement of public business, or before public business, requires no notice, except that notice shall be given in time for it to appear on the Order Paper for that day. Even Government Motions to be debated at that time appear only that day for the first time. That is the position under the Standing Orders. As far as I recollect off-hand, the only Standing Order which makes provision for definitely longer notice is Standing Order No. 8, with regard to Questions. I know of no other one.

Mr. Hay: Further to that point of order, Sir. With regard to private Member's business generally, we expect and


do receive rather longer notice than that given in the case of a Motion under Standing Order No. 12. The point that I want to put is whether it is not more consistent with the dignity of the House and the convenience of hon. Members that longer notice of Motions for leave to introduce Private Bills in this way should be given.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Surely, private Members are entitled to precisely the same rights as members of the Government? It frequently happens that Government Motions are put down with no more than 24 hours' notice, which may or may not be for the convenience of hon. Members. Surely it has always been the general rule and practice of the House, in respect of giving notice on the Order Paper in accordance with the Standing Orders, that every Member, be he private Member or member of the Government Front Bench, has precisely the same rights. I hope that that rule will be upheld.

Mr. W. A. Wilkins: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Bristol. South (Mr. Wilkins) wish to speak to this point of order, because I have already expressed my opinion on it?

Mr. Wilkins: No, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: The fact is that the rules of the House are as I have stated. While it may be convenient for hon. Members to have as long notice as is feasible and proper, I do not want to say anything which seems to throw any doubt at all on the perfect right of hon. Members to put down Motions in accordance with the rules of the House.

Mr. Wilkins: On a point of order. May I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that when I came through the "Aye" Lobby, the Clerks and Tellers had departed, and I was, therefore, unable to record my vote. May I ask that my name be included in the votes?

Mr. Speaker: It is too late now to do that, because the Division is over and I have declared the figures from the Chair. I will look into it, and see whether there is anything I can do to help the hon. Member.

Mr. Lewis: On a point of order. Is it not the recognised custom of this House that an hon. Member who has a personal interest should declare that personal interest? I have knowledge, as have many of my hon. Friends, that many hon. Members opposite are either company directors or legal advisers of property companies which will now make untold thousands of pounds profit under the Rent Act. Is it not at least decent and honourable that hon. Gentlemen opposite, when dealing with a Motion such as this, should either abstain from voting or at least declare their interest before voting on Motions and Bills such as this, which will put vast profits into their private pockets?

Mr. Speaker: To invalidate a vote, a pecuniary interest must be a direct and personal one to the Member, and one which is enjoyed by him and not in common with other persons in the same class. I have seen many farmers in this House, under all Governments, voting for Bills affecting farmers, and I have seen Co-operators doing the same thing. There is no question in this case of anybody having a direct and personal interest such as would affect his vote.

Mr. Lewis: May I further explain the point to you, Mr. Speaker? I know that many hon. Members are, in fact, directors of property companies who, as Members of this House, would get vast incomes from supporting certain Bills, or, as in this case, objecting to Bills, such as this one. If they do receive a direct and pecuniary interest, are they not in honour bound to declare that fact to the House?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member really cannot indict a whole section of nameless people. To ask me to disallow a vote, he must name a specific person, and show that any personal interest on this Bill comes within the category I have roughly described; but nothing can be done by merely accusing a whole lot of people of a vague interest which is not personal to themselves.

Mr. Lewis: If I obtain for you, Mr. Speaker, the names and the details of hon. Members who are receiving a direct pecuniary benefit from voting against Bills such as this one for which my hon. Friend sought leave, will you give the matter your further consideration?

Mr. Speaker: I hope that there will be no further proceedings on this matter unless they are in accordance with what I have said and the practice of the House. To go on accusing each other of having a personal interest, because we are doing something as a matter of State policy which affects a section or occupation to which we belong, would reduce the whole of our proceedings to a nullity.

Mr. Page: Further to that point of order. Would it not have been more in accordance with the decencies of this House if the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Lewis), in raising his point about interest, had prefaced his remarks by an apology to me for shouting, while I was speaking, that I had an interest?

Mr. Speaker: I suppose it is true to say that, in the matter we have just been discussing, tenants there have interests as well as landlords.

Orders of the Day — BRITISH NATIONALITY BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(POSITION OF FEDERATION OF RHODESIA AND NYASALAND AND ITS COMPONENT TERRITORIES.)

4.10 p.m.

Mr. A. G. Bottomley: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, at the end to insert:
This subsection does not affect the status of protected persons of Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland.
The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the protected persons of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland are not deprived of any of their rights. Under the Citizenship Bill of the Federation, a protected person becomes a federal citizen if, and only if, he makes application and subscribes to an oath of allegiance. Persons previously Southern Rhodesian citizens or British subjects in the Northern Territories automatically become Federal citizens. However, the Minister of Law, when introducing the Citizenship Bill into the Federal Parliament, showed that he was as anxious that they should retain their rights as we are, as I expressed it on Second Reading, because he said that to compel British-protected persons to become British subjects or to confer that status on their children by law would be a back-door way of annexing the Protectorates. With this, we agree; but, as I said on Second Reading, there have been differences; Ministers have resigned, and the Minister of Law may not have the same backing now as he had when he made that statement in the Federal Parliament.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said that British-protected persons remain protected under the Federal Citizenship Act by taking no action at all. In columns 281–2 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 28th January, the Under-Secretary is reported as suggesting that Section 1 (1, b) was necessary because a decision had to be made as to whether the two Protectorates were to be treated as Protectorates or as parts of a country with a separate citizenship.
In saying that the exclusion of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland from the definition of "Protectorates" deals with this point, the hon. and learned Gentleman is, in effect, saying that it has been decided to treat the Federation as one country with separate citizenship. The hon. and learned Gentleman went on to say:
Nevertheless, I am advised that, in law, the net result will be that these two territories will retain their general status of Protectorates, in spite of being within the Federation, and that their inhabitants will not be deprived against their will of their cherished status as British protected persons.
I do not understand on what basis the Under-Secretary can make this statement. We have to remember that, when court decisions have been made in the past, the courts have refused to take into account statements made in the Houses of Parliaments. The courts have said that they can be concerned only with an Act of Parliament as such. It appears to me and to my hon. Friends that the Bill does not give the assurance which it should.
4.15 p.m.
Subsection (1, b), this provides that
the protectorates of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland shall be excepted from the operation of any reference in the principal Act to a protectorate.
In Clause 1 (3) of the Bill, it is provided that subsection (1, b) does not affect the meaning of the term "British Protected person" nor does it affect the right of Her Majesty to declare by Order in Council which States and territories are Protectorates and which are protected states for the purposes of the Statute. In this connection, I refer to Section 30 of the British Nationality Act, 1948.
As I see it, the exclusion of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland from any reference in the principal Act to a Protectorate implies, despite subsection (3), that these territories are no longer Protectorates. Subsection (3) seems to me merely to ensure that protected persons from other Protectorates are not affected; in other words, it is the meaning of the word
which is unchanged but the connotation, is I see it, is different. It implies also that, regardless of the passing of the Bill, the British Government can declare Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland to be Protectorates. I understand that it will need an Order in Council to ensure the

future protected status of the persons who, until the Bill becomes law, are protected persons.
The one thing which is certain is that there is much confusion here, because of Clause 1 (1, b), which could quite easily leave the way open for the annexation by back-door methods of the Protectorates.
I have moved the Amendment because I consider that, if it were accepted, its effect would be quite certain in giving protected persons their rights. Unless something of this kind is done, there is, at the very least, a danger that people at present classified as protected persons in the two territories could, under Section 3 of the 1948 Act, be classified as aliens. Alternatively, they may become, in law, stateless persons. I am not suggesting that these results follow inevitably, but there is a danger that they will. As there is a doubt, I cannot see why the Government should object to giving the protected persons of the two territories the benefit of the doubt by accepting the Amendment.
The Joint Under-Secretary said that the position of British-protected persons
in Ghana is covered by the Ghana Independence Act, in which, he said,
it was provided that they should continue to enjoy the status of British-protected citizens until becoming citizens of Ghana."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1958; Vol. 581, c. 281–4.]
He then said that Clause 2 does not affect these people, and there is certainly no subsection excluding them, as there appears to be in the case of protected persons of Northern Rhodesia.
It appears to me that, if we are to prevent the Government of the Federation doing away with the status of protected persons so far as the domestic law is concerned, it would be advisable to accept the Amendment. I cannot see why there should be any distinction made between protected persons of Ghana and the protected persons of Northern Rhodesia. It is true that Ghana can now pass legislation affecting the Protectorate status of protected persons from her territory.
What I and my hon. Friends are seeking to do is to ensure that, by an Amendment, we can prevent the Federation putting itself in a similar position. I believe that the best way we can ensure—I think it is the common desire of all


hon. Members—that these protected persons have their rights in the future is to accept the Amendment which I have had the privilege of moving.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I am very glad that my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) has moved this Amendment, and I hope that it will result in more explicit assurances coming from the Government Front Bench in reply to the points that he has raised.
The unhappy fact is that the British citizen can no longer, to use the famous words of Lord Palmerston,
hold himself free from indignity, as the Roman in days of old could hold himself free from indignity, when he could say civis romanus sum.
Nor, unfortunately, can it be safely said today that a British subject, again to use Lord Palmerston's words,
in whatever land he may be shall feel confident that the watchful eye and strong arm of England will protect him against injustice and wrong.
If he happens to be a British citizen residing, for instance, in South Africa, although that fact may automatically confer upon him the status of a British subject or Commonwealth citizen it does not protect him from the lowest of indignities, from being segregated, from being expelled into a ghetto, and from being treated as an inferior citizen—to use the words of Lord Palmerston, subjected to
injustice and wrong.
Having said that, I think it gives significance to the questions that my right hon. Friend has asked and really underlines our anxiety about this matter, because there is, I assure the Front Bench opposite, deep interest in this issue in the minds of those citizens of the Federation who will be affected by this legislation. They presently enjoy the status of British-protected persons. What difference there is between that in terms of obligations and privileges from the status of British citizen, I am not entirely clear. I asked for enlightenment upon that matter on Second Reading, but, unfortunately, it was not forthcoming. It would have been welcomed then and will be welcomed today, and I trust that we shall receive it.
I further asked on Second Reading for a specific assurance that the Government of the Federation could not, between now and 1960, by its domestic

or federal legislation, do away with this status of protected persons so far as the law of the Federation was concerned. When I asked that question, I received this reply, which, presumably, was a considered reply by the Under-Secretary, because it came after the speech of the Joint Under-Secretary for the Home Department, who very rightly said that the matter would receive consideration. This is as far as the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations was able to go:
It is natural that I should like to give more consideration to the answer in due course, but my preliminary answer is that it could not, because such legislation would not be within the powers of the Federal Parliament as set out in the Federal Constitution. If a Federal Act were passed with that object, it would be ultra vires and could be declared so by the courts. This is a complicated problem, and possibly this is a matter which we will have a further opportunity of considering when we come to the Committee stage."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1958; Vol. 581, c. 311.]
The answer of the Under-Secretary was good so far as it went, but it does bear that qualification at the end. I am bound to say that when I rose to congratulate the hon. Gentleman upon what I thought was a specific assurance, I had not appreciated the sting in the tail of his assurance. I ask now for it to be stated in more specific terms: otherwise, it will be our duty on this side of the Committee to divide on this Amendment, if I may say so.
Surely it is clear—this should be stated by the Government in clear terms—that if the Federal Government purports to enact laws conferring citizenship status on present British-protected persons contrary to that status or different from the status conferred upon them by the law in the United Kingdom, such federal law would either be disallowed or be invalid as repugnant to the United Kingdom law applying to the Federation territory—for example, the British Nationality Act or the relevant Orders in Council applying to the two Protectorates. There is no room for doubt about that proposition of law. If it is left in a state of uncertainty, it may well cause alarm and despondency among British-protected persons in the Federation and may well lead the Government of the Federation into thinking that it has powers which this Parliament and this


Government should declare quite clearly the Federation Government has not.
Accordingly, I hope that we shall have an unqualified assurance on that matter before the end of the discussion on this Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I will start by dealing with some of the points which were raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley). First, to dispatch one of the smaller points, he asked what was the difference or relationship between the position of protected persons in Ghana and the position of protected persons in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia. The difference is that whereas under the present status of the Federation for Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland the protected status is retained, under the Ghana Independence Act the protected status for the Protectorates, which are the Northern Territories, is abolished. In fact, the situation of these two countries is not in any way similar, and the problem surrounding nationality and citizenship in Ghana is not the same as it is for the present British-protected person in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
The right hon. Gentleman, in moving his Amendment, said that his party was anxious to see it incorporated in the Bill to make it clear that there would be no question in the future of the British-protected persons in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland losing their special status as a result of the passage of this legislation. Clause 1 (3) covers the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I remember that on Second Reading he chided the Government upon the somewhat complicated nature of the drafting of the legislation which we were considering. It is true that it is complicated, but the method used in drafting this particular type of legislation is the principle of excluding whole classes from the operation of particular legislation and then putting back that section in respect of which it is desired that previous legislation or previous status shall still apply. In this Bill, Clause 1 (1, b) takes out all those persons affected in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland from the operation of the original Act, whereas subsection (3) puts them back again to all intents and purposes.
During the Second Reading debate, I explained that the status of British-protected persons in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland will not be affected by the passing of this Bill owing to the existence of safeguards provided in subsection (3). There is only one exception. To become a British subject a British-protected person in either of those territories will in future do so through registration as a federal citizen instead of, as previously, by the very complicated and difficult system of naturalisation through the Government of the Protectorate concerned. Therefore, it will be easier for a British-protected person in Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland to become a British subject in future than it has been up to now.
4.30 p.m.
This might be an appropriate time to deal with a matter raised by the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South (Mr. Elwyn Jones). He asked me to define a British citizen, and his relationship to a British subject. At present, there is no such term as "British citizen". There is the British subject or Commonwealth citizen, referred to in Section 1 of the British Nationality Act, 1948, and there is the citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, just as there is a citizen of the Republic of India—the difference being that a citizen of the Republic of India is also a Commonwealth citizen, whereas a citizen of Canada, for example, is also a British subject.
I do not know whether I have made the point clear to the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: My question was; what is the difference between the rights and liabilities of a British-protected person as distinct from a British subject? That is a far more difficult question.

Mr. Alport: The hon. and learned Member certainly asked that question subsequently, but I have a quite clear recollection of his putting the other question earlier.
The difference between the position of a British-protected person and a British subject, in the law of the United Kingdom, is that a British subject, on coming to the United Kingdom, can obtain nearly all the rights of a citizen of the United Kingdom in the United Kingdom,


whereas a British-protected person does not have a similar status in the United Kingdom. So far as I am aware there is also a difference in their status within the domestic laws of other members of the Commonwealth and other countries.
I have been asked a number of questions as to the likely position of a British-protected person in the Federation in future. Again, following the point made by the hon. and learned Member for West Ham, South, after having given mature thought to a difficult subject, I can now confirm that any legislation passed within the Federation by the Federal Parliament which is designed to abolish the status of a British-protected person, in respect of British-protected persons in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia, would be ultra vices and could be brought before the courts for determination.
The hon. and learned Member also asked me whether it would be possible for the Federal Parliament to give to a British-protected person from Northern Rhodesia or Nyasaland, within the Federation, a status in addition to that which he enjoyed at the present time as a result of his being a British-protected person. The answer is that whereas the Federal Parliament would not be able to withdraw the status of British-protected person it would be possible theoretically for it to add to that status a second status of Federal citizen and British subject.
The right hon. Member for Rochester and Chatham referred to a statement made by the Minister of Law in the Federation, in which he made it quite clear that, quite apart from any constitutional or legal aspects of the problem, to compel British protected persons to become British subjects would have political repercussions of a major character. According to what the right hon. Gentleman said, the Minister of Law said that it would amount to annexation by the backdoor. It is quite clear that it is not the intention of the Government of the Federation or of the United Kingdom that any such action should take place. The truth is that a completely new situation would arise in that case, but that in any case it would not be possible for the Federal Government to withdraw the status of British-protected person from those who enjoy it at present.
As I have said, the inclusion of the Amendment would not make any difference to the Bill. It would not do anything which
is not already done by subsection (3) and it would not achieve what the right hon. Gentleman wishes. Any Amendment of this
kind which we included in the Bill would be effective only in United Kingdom law and not in the law of the Federation or of any other Commonwealth country. In those circumstances, and with the assurances which I have given—which are of a very practical and effective nature—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I do not know whether I entirely followed the hon. Member's explanation but, as understand him, subsection (1, b) takes certain people out, and they are promptly put in again by subsection (3). If we have a subsection which is promptly cancelled by one almost immediately following, might it not be simpler to do without both?

Mr. Alport: The hon. and learned Member is raising a drafting point. I was trying to explain that there is a certain process of dealing with this kind of problem which entails withdrawing the whole of a class from the operation of the Bill in order to clear the decks for action, and then to replace such a proportion of that class to whom it is required that the Bill or the original Act shall still apply. This is matter of drafting. I am assured that, compared with the form of the Amendment, it is a far more effective and cast-iron way of accomplishing what the right hon. Gentleman wishes.

Mr. Paget: It is not a question of taking out some and then putting back part. It is a question of putting back the whole.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I understand that the Under-Secretary has given us an assurance that the condition of protected persons in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia is unaffected by this new Bill, with one exception. That exception was stated in precise terms by the Home Secretary in reply to a Written Question which appears in HANSARD today. It is paragraph (d) of a


long reply. I propose to read this statement in order to define the issue clearly. It reads as follows:
(d) British protected persons belonging to Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, although retaining their status as British protected persons, will not be able to apply to the Governors of those territories for naturalisation by virtue of residence there, though under the citizenship law of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland they will be able to acquire. British nationality by the simple process of registration as Federal citizens.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1958; Vol. 581, c. 165.]
The Under-Secretary said that this process would be easier than the process of applying to the Governors of the respective Protectorates, but the issue is not whether it is easier or not. The real issue here is that large numbers of those who are protected persons in Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia do not wish, on principle, to register as citizens of the Federation. The hon. Gentleman may say that this is a comparatively small exception, but this exception raises the princple of the issue which we had in mind when we tabled the Amendment.
Under present conditions a protected person can become a citizen of the United Kingdom through naturalisation by direct application to the Governor of one or other of those territories. In future, he can only become naturalised by a process of registration as a federal citizen. During the Second Reading I pointed out that some of us would not be committed because this Bill recognised the Federation. The Federation must be reviewed in 1960, and in our view it is undesirable that we should be entirely committed to it before then. There are thousands of Africans in Nyasaland and in Northern Rhodesia who are opposed to the political Federation. These will not become registered citizens of the Federation, and because they will not become citizens of the Federation they will lose their rights under this Measure to be naturalised as British citizens.
This may appear, in the view of the hon. Gentleman, to be a minor exception, but it raises the principle we have brought forward in putting down the Amendment. I hope, therefore, that unless this exception can be removed from the Bill, we shall express our protest against this principle by going into the Division Lobby.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. James Johnson: I want to ask the Minister a simple question which, I hope, he will answer, not in lawyers' jargon, but in a way that will satisfy a layman like myself. Would the hon. Gentleman tell us the exact position of a protected person at the moment in this context in the Federation? I ask this because during the last year or two we have seen the erosion of the status of protected persons elsewhere. In Africa today there are many places where people are in doubt. I mention the Northern Territories of Ghana, through Ashanti to the Somalis, the dispute with Ethiopia, and the Nyasa chiefs who came here for the Federation talks seven years ago.
In talking to Africans overseas one finds that they are puzzled as to their position and their guarantee as protected persons. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be explicit on this point, because Africans say, "We are protected persons, but what does that mean, particularly in the Federation? When we wish to claim our 'protection' in this particular context, what does it mean? It seems to mean very little." These questions can arise not only in the Northern Territories of Ghana, but also in other places where there are pieces of paper signed in the last century, in the time of Queen Victoria, to which Africans in the bush and in their own tribal society attach great importance. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will answer definitely the last question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway).

Mr. Alport: I will try to answer the further points that have been put to me. After the passing of this Bill the position of the protected person will not be altered. The alteration that may take place in his status is one which will be due to legislation in the Federation itself. It will enable him to qualify for a vote in circumstances which would not be open to him as a British protected person in the Federation at the present time. Broadly speaking, however, there will be no change.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway), speaking presumably for himself, said that he did not recognise the Federation. Yet his party, at the time of the Third


Reading of the Bill setting up the Federation, clearly accepted it. Indeed, both sides of the House have accepted the existence of the Federation. It is logical, therefore, that we should wish to deal with the Federation in accordance with the principles laid down for the stage to which the Constitution has developed and which the Federation has reached.
The hon. Gentleman also said that there was a disadvantage as regards the British-protected person in that in future, as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, the British-protected person would not be able to become a British subject and citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies by naturalisation through the Governor, but would become a British subject by registration as a federal citizen.
The hon. Gentleman said there were thousands of Africans in the Protectorates who would not wish to become federal citizens, but we must be just as clear that there are thousands of Africans who do not wish to become British subjects and citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, because the facility for being naturalised has been in existence since the 1948 Act was passed. As I said during the Second Reading debate, there have been only 21 in Northern Rhodesia and three in Nyasaland who have taken advantage of it.
In those circumstances, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) can be assured that the position of the British-protected person is properly safeguarded, and that his status will not be changed as a result of the passing of this Bill. Also, the hon. Member for Eton and Slough can be assured that there is no appreciable reduction in the status of the British-protected person following from this Bill, as a result of the technical change which involves becoming a British subject through becoming a federal citizen, rather than being naturalised through the Governor as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies and a British subject at the same time.

Mr. Brockway: I wish to correct something that the hon. Gentleman said. I did not say that I did not recognise the Federation. What I said was that I did not recognise it in a permanent form before the review of the Constitution in 1960.

Mr. Paget: I recognise that the Bill, as explained by the Minister, has exactly the same effect as our Amendment. If that be so, since our Amendment contains a dozen words and the Bill contains 120 words and both sets of words do exactly the same thing, and the words in the Bill are totally incomprehensible to a layman and would be comprehensible to a lawyer only after very extensive research whereas our dozen words are comprehensible to even the simplest African, why should we not have our dozen words instead of the hon. Gentleman's 120?

Mr. Elwyn Jones: I am faintly disturbed by a phrase used by the Under-Secretary towards the end of his speech. I was happy until then. He said that the Bill would not effect an appreciable reduction in the status of the British protected person—

Mr. Alport: In interrupting the hon. and learned Gentleman, I merely want to prevent him from using an expression of mine to follow an argument which I do not think should necessarily arise from that expression. All that I have been trying to show in my explanation of the legal aspects is that the position of the British-protected person is not changed except in the one respect that we have recently been discussing following the intervention of the hon. Member for Eton and Slough. In saying "appreciably", I was referring merely to that very minor aspect.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: Does it mean that additional rights will be conferred upon such a person rather than that he will he deprived of rights in regard to his responsibilities and privileges as a resident in the Federation?

Mr. Alport: Yes, that is so.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: If that is agreed, I am reasonably happy.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: In spite of the hon. Gentleman's careful explanation, two points still remain obscure to me.
As to the rights of the protected person, I am not quite clear just what happens. I understand that the protected person now has an additional right, but I also understand that his rights are abated in one way, in that he can no longer apply


to the Governor for naturalisation. The hon. Gentleman may say that, on balance, the protected person is gaining or that there is no appreciable change, but I should like it to be made clear that a right has been abated in that the person no longer has the right to apply to the Governor for naturalisation.
The other point relates to the status of the protected person who has applied for Federal citizenship. When I first came across this concept it seemed fairly clear. I understood that the protected person applied for registration as a federal citizen, and if he was accepted he was registered, and then he ceased to be a protected person and becomes a federal citizen. I gathered from the Under-Secretary's first intervention that that was not the case and that the protected person would remain a protected person and would add to his status that of a citizen of the Federation. Will the hon. Gentleman make clear which of those two readings of the situation is correct?

Mr. Alport: If a British-protected person applies for federal citizenship and the status of a British subject by registration, he will cease to be a British-protected person and will become a federal citizen, with all the rights and privileges that apply. That assumes that the person does it, as no doubt many will in due course, as a result of a voluntary application.

Mr. Ede: Then he will be a British subject, and if he comes to this country he will have the same rights as every other British subject? Are we to understand that that is so and that he could not be deported by the Home Secretary if, being a federal citizen, he has become a British subject?

Mr. Alport: I confirm to the right hon. Gentleman that if the person becomes a British subject and a federal citizen and comes to the United Kingdom he will enjoy precisely the same status as any other British subject coming to the United Kingdom, such as a British subject who is a citizen of Canada or of New Zealand.

Mr. Bottomley: The last thing that I want to do is to create doubt where doubt does not exist. We are concerned with the well-being of the peoples of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, and I am

assured by my hon. and learned Friends, who understand this matter much better than I do—although the Under-Secretary's explanation was quite clear to me—that the subsection does not affect the status of protected persons in Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland. In those circumstances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(CERTAIN CITIZENS OF GHANA TO CEASE TO BE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED KINGDOM AND COLONIES.)

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. Paget: I wish to raise a matter about which I should like to have some assurance. On Second Reading, I raised a question which, apparently, had never been raised during the passage of the Bill through another place, which causes a little doubt in my mind whether this is a very satisfactory way of initiating legislation.
The question seemed to me to be an important one. I asked whether the Government would tell us whose rights we were changing in the Bill. When I asked the question an expression somewhat of blank amazement came over the face of the Under-Secretary. His reply amounted to, "I am very sorry; we simply have not thought of that." I think that is a fair summary of what was said at rather greater length from the Treasury Bench.
To crystallise the matter I tabled a Question to enable the Department to think out whose rights were being affected. The answer appeared in the OFFICIAL REPORT today. What appears to me to be of some importance is what is given in that answer in paragraph (c). This applies to two of the Clauses that we are considering. It applies to the protected person who has become a federal citizen; it applies to the federal citizen, and it also applies to the citizen of Ghana. It says that
they will have to look to the Ghana authorities for the issue of a passport and for the protection which the issue of such a passport implies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 4th February, 1958; Vol. 581, c. 166.]


That means that if protected persons who have taken federal citizenship in the Rhodesias or Nyasaland or in Southern Rhodesia or citizens of Ghana, come here and their local passports run out or are withdrawn for some reason, they may find themselves in an extremely awkward situation.
Their passports may be withdrawn because their local Government, either the Government of the Federation or the Government of Ghana, do not like the journalistic or political activities in which they are indulging in this country. That can happen. We had a very unhappy situation over Iraqi students who were over here when something like that happened. I want an assurance that there are powers to deal with that situation should it arise.
I considered putting down a new Clause or an Amendment to say:
Nothing in this Act shall derogate from the Secretary of State's power to issue a passport to anybody who but for this Act would be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
I am satisfied that that would be out of order, because it is a matter of prerogative that the Secretary of State and the Crown have power to issue a passport to anybody whether he be a United Kingdom citizen, a British subject, or, indeed, an alien. Therefore, I do not entirely understand the effect of that portion of the answer save in so far as it is said that the ordinary procedure would be for such a person to apply locally rather than to apply here.
think that the matter is important, and I ask for the assurance that all those people whose rights we may be affecting today, should they be in this country or should they be stranded abroad where we have consulates, will have the right to apply for a passport the issue of which is, of course, discretionary. It is recognised that if they do apply for a passport the Secretary of State will have a perfect right to issue one to them although, as a matter of convenience in the ordinary case, they would be referred to their local commissioner or whoever might be their local authority in this country. I hope that I can be given that assurance.

Mr. Alport: If the impression that my previous answer gave was as stated by the hon. and learned Member for

Northampton (Mr. Paget) it would merely have resulted from my astonishment that the hon. and learned Gentleman, who is an ardent supporter of the Government who passed the 1948 Act, should now expect me to explain to him the principles upon which nationality in that Act was based. However, the hon. and learned Gentleman has now restricted his question to a somewhat more limited field particularly relating to passports, and I will, to the best of my ability, try to answer it.

Mr. Paget: I certainly do not hold myself up as one who understands all Acts that we have passed, but I do expect the Government to understand our Acts if they propose to alter them and at least to apply their mind to whose rights they are to affect by those alterations. That is what I am saying.

Mr. Alport: I will, if I may, try to help the hon. and learned Gentleman in that other matter, but at the moment perhaps I may be allowed to deal with the particular issue of the passport.
I understand that is a prerogative act and has never been regulated by legislation. Therefore, it would be inappropriate to deal as the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think, at one time wished to do, with the matter in any Bill, and certainly in this Bill. United Kingdom passports are not, in fact, issued solely to citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. They are issued also to British subjects without citizenship and to British-protected persons. It is not, however, the practice of the United Kingdom to issue passports to persons whose British nationality depends on their citizenship of some other independent Commonwealth country.
It is part of the understanding between the self-governing members of the Commonwealth, and, indeed, part of the very principle upon which the British Nationality Act, 1948, was based that these various services should be rendered by the Government to whom the individual was most closely connected and who therefore had particular responsibilities in respect to him. As I said, I think, during Second Reading, it was always understood that there would be no poaching by one Government in respect of the citizens who properly were "belongers," if I may use that word


which, I hope, may be an Anglo-Saxon expression, to another country and, therefore, who come within the scope of the responsibility of the Government of that other Commonwealth country.
As I understand, the object of the hon. and learned Gentleman is to try, so to speak, to mop up those who for one reason or another are unable to obtain passports or other services from the Governments to whom they properly belong in accordance with the principles of the 1948 Act, but that would be contrary to those principles, principles which, I may say, are well-established and which form an important aspect, and one which we must not underestimate, of the con-ception of sovereignty of the independent Commonwealth. Although I do not claim in any way to have illuminated the hon. and learned Gentleman's mind on the subject, I hope that I have explained the principle as we see it.
As far as the general conception of the 1948 Act is concerned, I personally always envisage it as being in the shape of a large umbrella with a number of panels in it, rather like, perhaps a golf umbrella. Some of those panels are collectively termed "Commonwealth Citizenship" and "British Subjecthood", but each panel represents the specific citizenship of one independent member and the whole lot comprise a single unity, so to speak, which is Commonwealth citizenship or British subjecthood which, according to the Act of 1948, are interchangeable in the circumstances of the differing status of the members of the independent Commonwealth. That is how I try to explain it to myself, and I hope that it may be of assistance to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
I would only add that I am sure that it is most important, if the principles are to be maintained, that we in the House of Commons should be as strong in support of those principles as any other member of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Paget: I am greatly disappointed by that answer. First, it is quite clear that we are affecting people's rights in a way which may well be vital to them on some specific occasion in the future and that we are affecting rights not merely of people who possess the citizenship because they lived in certain areas, but of protected persons whom we have taken under our special protection.
It is one thing to do this where we have an area of equal citizens, that is, not people who have a different status of protected people and citizenship, but people who become members of the Commonwealth by a clear expression of their own will. That is not the situation in the Federation. I voted in favour of the Federation. I believed that, on balance, although I am not quite so certain now, there were very great advantages in the Federation. Therefore, I do not say what I now say with any sense of hostility to it.
The Federation provided great problems, because there were in it people with whom we had a very special and sacred contract in the eyes of the Africans, that is, the duty of protection. I felt that we should be desperately careful not to take from those protected persons rights which might be highly important to them. That also applies in a rather less degree to the Northern Provinces of Ghana.
If, by this Bill, we bring about a state of affairs in which they can no longer, either by becoming naturalised citizens of this country or directly as protected persons, obtain our passports, we are making a very real difference to them, because it is only too foreseeable that people from the Northern Provinces of Ghana and people from Northern Rhodesia may take political action over here. They may write articles and do various things which will annoy their local Government and, as we saw happen in the case of Iraq, there may be a sudden withdrawal of passports.
I should have liked an assurance that we were not altering any rights of protected persons. Since I agree that it is impossible within the Federation to acquire British citizenship by naturalisation, and since the only difference there resulting is the passport difference, I should have liked to have an assurance that this special difference and this special obligation and honour to protected persons would be borne in mind as a special case if a request for a passport were made by people whom we are affecting under the Bill when they are unable to get their facilities from the Government to which here we are compelling them alone to look, instead of being able as at present to look to us as well. That is something which, in honour to these people, we should do.
It would be of great assistance to the Foreign Secretary if, when it came to issuing passports and the local Government were annoyed, he were able to refer to what had been said, in debate here and to point out that it had been agreed that this had always been recognised as something which we owe to people to whom we have this special obligation of honour. It would be recognised that if people who, but for the passing of the Bill, would have had the right to British passport facilities, were to find themselves in a position in which they could not get passports, we would consider that as a special case. That might be very valuable in future and of great assistance to the Foreign Secretary.

Mr. J. Johnson: In the last weeks or months a number of protected persons in Nyasaland, and also in Tanganyika and in East Africa as a whole, have wished to leave the territory to attend conferences such as the Afro-Asian Conference. Since the Federation Act was passed when migration was in the hands of Sir Roy Welensky and his Ministers, a well-known African leader such as Manoah Wellington Chirwa is not allowed to leave when he wishes to do so. When such cases occur, does the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations make any representations? If so, would the Under-Secretary tell us and tell us what luck he has had?

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Alport: I find myself in some difficulty in replying to the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) simply because the Clause has no relationship whatsoever to the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland. It deals exclusively with the problem of Ghana. It would be wrong for me to do any more in the context of the Clause, because we are most anxious that there should be no confusion among those who consider our debate. We are anxious that there shall be no confusion and no misunderstanding of the distinction, which is quite clearly drawn in the Bill, between the status of Nyasaland and Northern Rhodesia and the Federation on the one hand and of Ghana on the other. They are quite separate and are differently treated in the Bill. The considerations are different in respect of both of them. A special status of British-protected persons is retained in

the case of Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland, but that is not so in the case of Ghana.
All that I can say in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Northampton is that I am certain that the Home Secretary will study his remarks, but the problems which he raises on the subject of passports are a matter which we cannot discuss in the House of Commons or legislate for in the House. They must he and should be left, as, indeed, must the point raised by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson), to administrative action for which the Government here or in the Commonwealth countries concerned must be responsible.
We stand in danger of confusing the subject even more than is the case already by discussing a particular problem of passports which has no relationship to the Clause and at the same time carrying on a discussion which affects two parts of the Commonwealth—the Federation and Ghana—which do not stand in similar status and are not shown as so doing in the Bill. Therefore, I hope that the undertaking I have given that his remarks will
be considered will be accepted by the hon. and learned Member for Northampton. I would say one more thing. I am sure that the whole of the Committee appreciates that we on these benches, just as hon. Members opposite, realise fully the great importance which British-protected persons attach to the status that they enjoy.

Mr. Paget: I would point out to the Under-Secretary of State that it was the Government's suggestion that this matter should be raised on this Clause; it was they who suggested that this would be the most convenient time to do so. I certainly have no preference at all as to when would be the most convenient time at which to give the sort of small assurance for which I have asked. Perhaps on Third Reading the confusion between the two will not arise.
All I ask is that, should any of the people who have formerly been protected persons and whose rights we may be affecting by this Bill, find themselves desperately unhappy and not able to get a passport, special consideration should be given to them. I ask no more than that. I do not say for a moment that they should be entitled to a passport as of


right, or anything of that sort, but I ask that one should recognise the special position of such people, and in addition that the acceptance of my request would make matters easier for the Foreign Secretary. It would be a great convenience to him to be able to say, "Look back to when this Act was passed; we gave an assurance that we would give special consideration to such people." I feel that this would be helpful to everybody concerned if such an assurance could be given.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): The hon. and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) is right in saying that it was suggested to him that if he wished to raise the question of the effects of this Bill on passport practice generally he should endeavour to do so on the Question That the Clause stand part, and it was I who made that suggestion to him. I hope that it was a helpful suggestion, not only at the time that it was made, but now that he has followed it. I hope the hon. and learned Gentleman will feel that the very full and clear statement which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has given about passport practice in the United Kingdom, which, as my hon. Friend has pointed out, is a matter for the Prerogative, has enlightened him.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3.—(EXTENSION OF POWERS TO REGISTER PERSONS AS CITIZENS OF UNITED KINGDOM AND COLONIES.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Brockway: Sir Gordon, may I ask whether you intend to call the Amendments standing in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley)—in page 4, line 15, leave out from "been" to first "a" in line 16 and insert:
on the first day of January, nineteen hundred and forty-seven".
and in line 16, at end insert:
or a British Protected person".

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): Those Amendments are out of order.

Mr. Brockway: On a point of order, Sir Gordon. I should like to press that point. Is it possible for the Chair to say why these Amendments are held to be out of order?

The Deputy-Chairman: I am bound by the selection made by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

Mr. Brockway: I understand that these Amendments have been held to be out of order on the ground that in this Clause there is no reference to a British-protected person. May I submit that a British-protected person is frequently referred to in—

The Deputy-Chairman: Order. The hon. Member cannot discuss why the Amendments are ruled out of order. The only thing which it is permissible
to discuss is the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Brockway: If I cannot discuss why the Amendments have been ruled out of order, I should like to discuss the whole Clause.
During the Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham and I raised the position of certain Indians in the Union of South Africa who had been British-protected persons but who had lost that right under the South African Citizenship Act of 1949. The first question that I want to ask is if the Minister will say whether, in his view, the Clause without amendment refers to persons in that position, and secondly I should like to know what the Government have in mind in subsection (1, b, iii).
As the hon. Gentlemen will know, the 3,000 Indians in the Union of South Africa were born in the Native States or the Princely States. They had passport rights until 1949, and then they lost those passport rights. They are now stateless persons. It was the argument of my right hon. Friend the Member for Rochester and Chatham and myself that they ought to be covered in a Bill of this kind. I should like the Minister to say something about that before this Clause is passed.
My other question is this. If subsection (1, b, iii) does not refer to such persons, to what persons does it refer? It says:
that having been at the date of the commencement of the principal Act a citizen of


such a country, or having (whether before or after the coming into operation of this section) been made one by the coming into operation of any law of such a country, he has lost that citizenship otherwise than by his own act done for the purpose.
Who are these persons? Who has
lost that citizenship otherwise than by his own act done for the purpose?
If it does not apply to 3,000 protected persons in the Union of South Africa, where does it apply? Does it apply to those who were British subjects and are now in Portuguese African territories? Who are these persons? We should like some explanation before this Clause is accepted.

Sir James Duncan: History works in a peculiar way. I think it is live years ago that I raised the question of the deprivation of British citizenship from a nun in a mission in India. Her father was in the Indian Civil Service. Her grandfather was in the Indian Army, having originally come from Eire. A nun leads a fairly enclosed sort of life, and she did not follow the machinations of the Socialist Government in 1948. She woke up one morning to find that she was no longer entitled to a British passport.
I raised this matter in the House, but I got no change from the Home Office at all. I was told that she was either a citizen of Eire or a citizen of India but certainly was no longer a British citizen and that she could not have a British passport. The only thing I could get out of the Government was that if she ever wanted to come home to England the High Commissioner would see that she got home. I thought, and still think, that that was an injustice imposed by hon. Members opposite in the 1948 Act.
5.30 p.m.
Hon. Members opposite may not agree, but it is people of this sort who for generations have been maintaining British prestige and have governed India and kept the peace between the masses in India. They were, I should have thought, the most loyal British subjects one could imagine and yet, by a stroke of the pen in an Act of Parliament, they lost the right to British citizenship.
I therefore welcome now the second thoughts of the Government, and 1 believe that in subsection (1, b, ii) we have the answer. Now that old lady who

is "descended in the male line" from somebody who was born in the Republic of Ireland will, I think, be entitled to British citizenship. If I am wrong, I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will correct me, but at last after years of disappointment and worry I think that that will be the position.
I would say only one other thing in commending the Clause to the Committee. If my interpretation is correct, there lies upon the Commonwealth Relations Office, through the High Commissioners, a duty to inform all these people who are living a long way off in missions all over India, Pakistan and similar places of their new rights so that once again at long last they will have their heart's desire and become British subjects. I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations will take this step as soon as the Bill becomes an Act and do everything possible to inform everybody who can possibly be affected that these rights will once more be restored.

Mr. Renton: The hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) first asked me to explain the position of those people in the Union of South Africa who are, as he rightly said, stateless persons, who are of Indian and Pakistani extraction and were at one time—they are not now—British-protected persons. If the Committee will bear with me, I will briefly retail the history of those people and how they have arrived at their present position as stateless persons.
They were people who were in what were called the Princely States of India. When the Indian Independence Act was passed in 1947, they ceased to be British-protected persons as a result of that Act and as a result of a citizenship law passed in India at about the same time or shortly after the passing by us of the Indian Independence Act. To use the picturesque phrase which my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations used during Second Reading, the mantle of protection then fell from the British Government. As far as I am aware, it has not yet been assumed by any other Government.
I said on Second Reading, when I was interrupted on many occasions—

Mr. Brockway: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Gentleman once again. Before 1949, the Government of the Union of South Africa issued these people with passports and gave them other citizenship facilities, except the right to vote; but now even that much has been withdrawn. They are like refugees—they have no passports and they are stateless.

Mr. Renton: I was not aware of the precise facts which the hon. Member has mentioned and, as a Member of Her Majesty's Government, I cannot answer for them. I did say that it was very difficult to be a walking encyclopaedia of all the citizenship laws of the Commonwealth, but in answer to the hon. Member's plea on the last occasion, I have managed to find out a little more about the position and am able to give him an indication of what rights are open to these about 3,000 unfortunate people.
So far as India is concerned, Article 8 of the Indian Constitution and Section 5 of the Indian Citizenship Act, passed in 1955, provides for the recognition of persons of Indian origin living outside India. Those people can apply to the Indian authorities for registration as Indian citizens if they wish. Of course, it is for the Indian Government to decide whether they should be so registered. There is nothing that we can do about it.

Mr. Brockway: rose—

Mr. Renton: This is a complicated matter, and the Committee would, I am sure, become even more confused if the, I hope, clear narrative that I am trying to give is too much disturbed. I will give way to the hon. Member and, if necessary, answer him again later.
Concerning Pakistan, the position is not quite so hopeful. Registration under the Pakistan Citizenship Act is dependent upon the applicant obtaining from the Pakistan authorities a certificate of domicile. Of course, many of the people in question are now domiciled in South Africa and most of them probably have no intention of being domiciled anywhere else. It is doubtful, I should add, whether Indians resident in South Africa who have connections with former Indian States which are now
within Pakistan could qualify for registration as Pakistan citizens. The

matter is, therefore, necessarily complicated by the division of India into two parts in that way.
In the case of the South African Citizenship Act of 1949, which is all that I can speak about, generally speaking it conferred citizenship only on people who before its commencement—on 2nd September, 1949—were either Union nationals or British subjects. As I explained earlier, these 3,000 people were not British subjects. They were not even protected persons. They are, therefore, in something of a difficulty. They can, however, apply for South African citizenship by naturalisation. Without going into too much detail of the South African law, it is possible that they may be qualified by residence and so on. When naturalisation certificates are granted, no doubt the kind of discretion is allowed in South Africa that we have here and which most civilised countries have.
Therefore, to sum up, these people have the right to apply for naturalisation; but as it is a matter of discretion and an affair of the South African Government, it would be wrong for me to state that such an application would be successful. The fact that the hon. Member has informed the Committee that these people are still Stateless in spite of the passing of that law seems to confirm the point he made just now.
Those being the circumstances, there arises the question of what we can do about it or what we should do about it. The answer is that we can do nothing about it. These people are not in this country, they are not British-protected persons, they are not British subjects, and it would be quite wrong for us to purport to legislate for them. It would be a mere pretence on our part if we tried to do so.
The hon. Member's second question concerned the effect of subsection (1, b, iii). He asked particularly to what sort of people it could apply. He wanted a definition of the words:
…he has lost that citizenship otherwise than by his own act done for the purpose…
He wanted to know who might be in that position. People who could be in that position are the people who under Section 1 (3) of the British Nationality Act,


1948, were able to become British subjects through acquiring citizenship of a separate country within the Commonwealth. Those countries are enumerated in that subsection, and they are familiar to the Committee. But it must he remembered that in due course that will be further amended—it has been amended once already—by the passing of this Bill. Therefore, people in those Commonwealth countries have to be considered in the light of the fact that they lose their citizenship, not through any voluntary act of their own, but because of the laws which any one of those Commonwealth countries might pass.
In my speech during the Second Reading debate I gave, as an example, the fact that the Australian Parliament passed a Citizenship Law whereby anyone resident outside Australia for seven years would normally lose his Australian citizenship. We feel that, as those people have been British subjects, they have the right to apply to us and, if they comply with the provisions of this Bill, they will have the opportunity to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan) referred with approval to what we were proposing to do for those people, formerly British subjects, who became—I always forget the phrase, but I think it is British citizens without citizenship—as a result of the 1948 Act, but who under that Act were given a year—only one year—in which to apply for registration as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. That principally concerned a number of people of British extraction living in India or Pakistan who had performed, or whose ancestors had performed, service to the British Crown in earlier days.
It was felt by the Government of the party opposite that there was an obligation to give those people the opportunity to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies and, thereby, once more British subjects. Unfortunately, the Government of the party opposite gave only one year in which that could be done. I am not criticising, but it did not turn out to be anything like enough time for the news about the opportunity to seep through or for administrative

arrangements to be made. So we are extending that period for virtually five years, to 31st December, 1962.
I must issue one word of warning. My hon. Friend the Member for South Angus put a specific and individual case to me. It would be quite wrong for me to say from this Dispatch Box that that particular case will necessarily benefit from the provisions of this Clause. As I said during the Second Reading debate, various requirements must be complied with and, under some parts of this complicated Clause, the Secretary of State has a discretion in the matter. But may I express the hope, without committing myself, that my hon. Friend's friend will benefit as my hon. Friend hopes.
5.45 p.m.
A word about the position of people
of Irish extraction. Here the matter becomes complicated by the fact that at the time of the passing of the 1948 Act, what is now the Republic of Ireland was still, in constitutional theory part of Her Majesty's Dominions. Yet it was not possible at that time to clarify the status of all the people in Ireland, and since then the Republic of Ireland Act has been passed. Various cases have come to light of people in this country of Irish descent about whose status there is doubt. Those people will have the opportunity of applying for registration by virtue of the provisions in this Clause and we hope that various cases where uncertainty and hardship exists will be helped.

Sir J. Duncan: I pleaded that adequate advertisement of the change in the law should be made through the Commonwealth High Commissioners in India and Pakistan. The people who would be concerned do not read the English papers, and it would be a great pity were it not widely known that this change had been made.

Mr. Renton: I think that point is covered by the last subsection of the Clause, which says:
This section shall come into operation at the end of two months beginning with the date of the passing of this Act.
It will need two months to get the administrative arrangements under way. I agree with my hon. Friend that there should be adequate publicity and one hopes that there will be. We at the Home


Office will do all we can to facilitiate the making of applications and their consideration.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 4 and 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Brockway: I wish to put a question which I did not think it would be in order to put during the debate on Clause 3. My right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) asked whether a British subject from these territories would be able to enter this country and would be prevented from being deported from this country. The answer was in the affirmative. I wish to put the reverse side of the picture. Suppose there were a British subject in the Central African Federation who wished to come to this country. Will it be possible for the Government of the Federation to prevent him from coming to this country? Are there reciprocal arrangements? Does the control of immigration by the Government of Central Africa extend to the prevention of a British subject who is a citizen in the Federation area from coming to this country should he desire to do so?

5.50 p.m.

Mr. Alport: Perhaps I could help the hon. Gentlemen in this matter. I think we made it clear when we were discussing a similar subject during the Committee that decisions of this kind are administrative and, in so far as authority and power have been delegated from the United Kingdom by legislation here to the Federal Government who enjoy powers under the Order in Council concerned, the Federal Government must take any decision which falls within its powers in this administrative field.
I certainly would be wrong to go any further in this matter than that. Powers of deportation and of refusing entry to the United Kingdom are within the authority of Her Majesty's Government and the Executive, in accordance with

rights and powers given to them by Parliament. The same applies to the Federation.
These are very complicated matters. In some cases, although they are dry and legalistic in many respects, they touch the interests, the happiness and, indeed, the future of individuals. Having taken some share in the discussion of the Bill, I am grateful to all hon. Members concerned for the sympathetic way in which they have accepted or tried to understand the explanations which I have attempted to put forward.
On a previous occasion colleagues of mine, after trying to deal with complicated matters in a Bill such as this, said to their expert advisers, "I hope we didn't make too many mistakes". The expert advisers said, "You didn't make as many mistakes as the people who tried to put through the same Bill previously, but they did not have quite the same scope for doing so". I am grateful to the House for the assistance given to get the Bill through.

5.53 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: I do not want to speak about the general contents of the Bill, although I welcome the decision that has been taken; the rights of protected persons must be preserved. I want to draw attention to the point which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway).
The right of people to freedom of movement in the modern world is assuming a far greater importance than ever before. Political tests are often applied, and they seem extraordinarily unfortunate. The question put to the Minister concerns the freedom of a British-protected person or British subject to leave the territory to which he belongs, the withholding of passports even inside a territory, and freedom to move from one country to another, inside, say, the Federation, from Northern Rhodesia into Southern Rhodesia or into Nyasaland. It is more and more becoming the practice of Governments to interfere with freedom of movement. It is deplorable that such administrative action should be resorted to in the case of many persons who, in my own knowledge and judgment, are as worthy individuals and citizens as one could possibly meet.
I hope that this question will receive closer attention. We all receive letters of protest from time to time from people overseas because of this interference. The Colonial Secretary or the Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations would tell us that these matters are within the jurisdiction and the rights of local Governments, but it is becoming very much more. One can appreciate interference in the case of persons of criminal intent, but it is carrying administrative rights too far to subject people to tests which are purely political because it is alleged that they might undermine opinion in the countries to which they come. I hope that the Government in London will look at this problem because it definitely involves infringement of the rights and freedom of the individual. I hope that some of these practices will be stopped.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Bottomley: I would first thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) for the guidance he has given during the passage of the Bill and express my thanks to the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department and to the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations.
This is a complex Bill. Earlier there were some ambiguities because of the legal complications, but I thank the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations who has cleared up our minds completely on this matter this afternoon. We are grateful to him for that.
On this side of the House, we think that racial discrimination is alien to the spirit of the English common law, and we have tried to show that we stand by that belief. We hope that we have given encouragement to others in the Commonwealth and Colonies by the example and the practice of this country. To have no colour bar and no racial prejudice is something in which we firmly believe. To the extent to which the Bill meets the needs of an expanding Commonwealth, we give it our blessing and support.

5.58 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): I thank the right hon. Member

for Rochester and Chatham (Mr. Bottomley) for those kind words. Although this Chamber has been very thinly attended throughout the passage of the Bill, there is no doubt that the Bill affects the status of many people. Very little is more important in life than one's nationality. Although we have had discussions about doubtful points, it is a matter of satisfaction that the general intention of the Bill is acceptable to both sides of the House and in another place.
Perhaps I might stress two points which, I think, need emphasis so that those who may read our debates are not so much caught up with the details that they miss the main purport at which we are aiming. We need to bear in mind that British-protected persons in the Federation will remain British-protected persons unless they, by their voluntary act, care to become British subjects by applying for Federal citizenship.
The other thing is that in Ghana the steps which the Bill proposes are consistent with steps already taken in the case of all other Commonwealth countries, so that the people of Ghana may feel that they have their own citizenship of Ghana in order to enter the wider brotherhood of those who enjoy Commonwealth citizenship and British subject-hood.
There has been a great deal of discussion about the status of protected persons, and some dismay has been expressed, which I hope my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations has completely dispelled, about the possibility of people losing their protected status. There again, I should stress that anyone who decides, as a result of the Bill, to depart from the status of being a protected person will become a British subject, and that is a no less honoured status.
I feel I should mention one small detail in order to correct a mistake which I inadvertently made on Second Reading. An hon. Friend of mine who is not now in the Chamber asked in that debate whether the discretion given to a Secretary of State by the Bill for granting or refusing an application for registration was a discretion given for the first time in our legislation. I must make it abundantly plain that the answer I then gave was wrong. It is not now being given for the first time, as I then said. That discretion was given before under the


1948 Act. We are reviving that discretion in certain cases and extending it in other cases. There is, therefore, a reputable precedent for the exercise of a discretion by the Secretary of State in regard to registration, as there has been for a long time in regard to naturalisation.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the sums which may be borrowed by the Colonial Development Corporation or advanced to them by the Secretary of State, it is expedient,—

(a) to authorise the following consequences of raising from one hundred to one hundred and fifty million pounds the limit imposed by section eleven of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, on the borrowings (other than temporary borrowings) of the Corporation, namely—

any extension of the amounts which under the Overseas Resources Development Acts, 1948 to 1956, may be or are to be guaranteed by the Treasury, issued out of the Consolidated Fund borrowed by the Treasury or paid into the Exchequer; and
(b) to authorise the following consequences of raising from one hundred to one hundred and thirty million pounds the limit imposed by section twelve of the Overseas Resources Development Act, 1948, on advances to the Corporation by the Secretary of State, namely—

any extension of the amounts which under the Overseas Resources Development Acts, 1948 to 1956, may be or are to be issued out of the Consolidated Fund, borrowed by the Treasury, paid into the Exchequer or remitted to the Corporation by the Secretary of State.

Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — OVERSEAS RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(AMENDMENTS AS TO AREAS IN WHICH COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION MAY OPERATE.)

6.1 p.m.

The Chairman: I have received a manuscript Amendment from the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr.

Callaghan), which I propose to accept. It is most unusual to do so, but I allow it in this case.

Mr. James Callaghan: I beg to move, in page 1, line 5, to leave out subsection (1).
I thank you very much, Sir Charles, for allowing this Amendment to be moved. This is a technical matter, and I am sorry that we were not better advised. I am most grateful to you for accepting the Amendment.
The purpose of the Amendment is, quite simply, to enable the Colonial Development Corporation to operate in territories which become independent having formerly been Colonial Territories. We want to give the Government another opportunity this afternoon of thinking about this because we do not believe that they have as yet been fully seized of all the arguments. In his speech on Second Reading, the Colonial Secretary based himself on the White Paper, Cmd. 237, on the United Kingdom's rôle in Commonwealth development, which I thought a thoroughly bad Paper. The great point on which he relied was that the interests of the newly-emerging territories would be best served if they built up their own credit and made use of facilities for raising money on the London market and elsewhere. The whole concept of the White Paper, which I reject, is that private investment, not public investment, is going to do the job in the Commonwealth.
I have always taken the view that private investment has a substantial part to play overseas. It has played a substantial part in the past, and no doubt will continue to do so provided we save sufficient money in this country to make it possible to export the goods and services necessary for the development of overseas territories. That is a first condition, and I have never ceased to say so. Where the Government have gone wrong about this is that they assumed that this private investment, which will take the place of the Colonial Development Corporation in these newly-emerging territories, is likely to go to those new territories. I do not think that history bears that out. What seems true is that capital goes where capital is. On the whole, I should have thought it true to say that the capital from this country that has


been invested overseas has not gone to the newer territories—by "newer" I mean newly-emerging territories—but, in the main, has gone to the older established Dominions, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa.
In repeating to us the fact that overseas investment was of the order of £200 million a year, the Colonial Secretary did not say how this sum was divided as between the Colonial Territories, the newly-emerging territories, and the older Commonwealth territories. Dr. Gunnar Myrdal, the Swedish economist, recently published a book in which he claimed that the gap between the richer countries and the poorer countries was getting wider instead of narrower. In fact, the rich were getting richer in international terms and the poor relatively poorer, because of the growth of population. However true that may be, it is undoubtedly true that any capital available in this country for export overseas is much more likely to go to a highly-developed territory like Canada or Australia than to territories like Ghana or Malaya.
Reviewing the history of the last ten years, it would be true to say, relatively speaking, that much less capital has gone to India than to Australia. This seems to be the gap which the Government are leaving. That is why I want the Government to think about the matter again this afternoon. Under the Bill we are to continue to provide for Colonial Territories which remain
as Colonies and to rely on private investment to continue the job it has done in the older parts of the Commonwealth. In between we have the small group of territories which, at the moment they become independent, are to be left to the mercies of the London capital market. I do not believe that they will get the capital they need. There is a gap which should be filled.
We know that in those territories the Colonial Development Corporation already has substantial investments. There seems no reason, as a practical matter, why it should not continue to expand and extend those investments and operations—I use the word "investments" to cover operations—and embark on new ones. Under the Bill it is to be allowed to continue enterprises already started, and I agree with that. Under subsection (3) the Corporation is to be

allowed to enter into managerial relationships with these territories in order that it might undertake operations in a managerial capacity. What it is not allowed to do under subsection (1) is to put money into these territories.
I hope I have demonstrated that such money as the Government are relying on to go overseas is unlikely—I put it no higher—to go to these territories. I also hope I have demonstrated that those territories are in great need. For the most part, they rely on a primary product, or two or three primary products. Expansion of their markets in primary products has been developed as much for our convenience as for their advantage. If they are to be saved from the vacillations of world price fluctuations they need diversified industry. If the Government could only show them that there was a reasonable prospect of another agency stepping in to help diversified industry in these newly-emerging territories, I should feel happier.
I do not think that the Colonial Secretary, even in his most sanguine moods, would pretend that the Commonwealth Development Finance Corporation is likely to fill this gap. Private capital, I swear, will not begin to fill the gap. Therefore, I do not see why he should cut off from these territories this small source of help. He is willing that they should have technical assistance and that the Colonial Development Corporation should operate on a managerial or advisory basis, but, apparently, he is not willing that they should have the money to help them to raise themselves by their own bootstraps. I beg the hon. Gentleman who is to reply to think about the matter again and to let us have his considered views, which I trust will be in line with what I have said.

Mr. Philip Goodhart: When debates in the House end at a reasonable hour I sometimes go home to help to feed my young daughter. She takes her milk from a bottle, and she needs that milk. When she grows up she will continue to need it, and, certainly if she is a wise girl she will drink it, but it would be inappropriate for her then to take that milk from a bottle. Certainly when she went to school her school friends would think it a little odd if she drank the milk in that way.
It seems to me that many of our Colonies have infant economies and need the nourishment of the milk of capital investment. When they are very young it seems right that we should use the Colonial Development Corporation as a kind of bottle for injecting that milk of capital investment into them. When they grow older, however, this form of feeding ceases to be appropriate.
There are two principal reasons why weaning from the bottle should take place when a Colony emerges into independence. The first is that a Colony which becomes independent has more access to funds for development than has a dependent Colony. There are the sterling balances. I do not want to go into the mechanism by which the sterling balances are controlled, but clearly a Colony such as Kenya has infinitely less chance of drawing on its sterling balances, extensive though they may be, than has an independent country such as Ghana or Malaya. We know that Ghana and Malaya have extremely extensive sterling balances which they are now able to use with greater freedom.
The second reason is that they have greater access to the international money market. They have access not only to London but to the money markets of the world. I know of one Colony which in the last few months considered going to America and Western Germany for this finance. It was unable to do so because it could not obtain the Treasury guarantee. Independent countries such as Ghana and Malaya can quite fairly go to the international money market. They can go to America if they wish or Western Germany to try to obtain the money there.
The writings of Sir Sydney Caine have already been mentioned in debate; they were mentioned by the hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) on Second Reading. Sir Sydney Caine suggested in the article which has been quoted by the hon. Member that nearly half the £160 million which was devoted to Colonial development and welfare in the ten years 1946–56 could have been found by the resources of the Colonies themselves. That is a very substantial sum.

Mr. James Johnson: Is the hon. Member telling the House that in his view we could have released sterling

balances in London which belonged to the Colonies in question and that they could have used that money, instead of using taxpayers' money through Colonial Development and Welfare and C.D.C. funds?

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Goodhart: I suggest that certain of the then Colonies, Ghana and Malaya in particular, could have paid for certain developments for which the money was provided through the United Kingdom Government. I do not suggest that all the money used for colonial development by Ghana and Malaya would automatically have been diverted to other colonies, but it seems to me that if Ghana and Malaya had been able to draw on their own resources, a greater part of this money could have been diverted from this country to more needy Colonies.
Indeed, it seems to me that we have a special responsibility to the people who remain under our rule, however light that rule may be. I hope that as we to some extent control their access to the finance of the world, and as we do not control the access of Ghana and Malaya to the finance of the world, we shall be specially careful in providing the capital which they need for their development. Any Government at any time will have only a certain amount of money available for such a body as the Colonial Development Corporation for investment in the under-developed world.
It seems to me that the Amendment would enable funds which might otherwise be used in poor Colonies to be diverted to the relatively wealthier Ghana. The funds which might be used in the poor islands of the West Indies, which were mentioned on Second Reading, might be transferred for investment in wealthy Malaya. In other words, we should be taking money from the poor Colonies—and mostly it is the poor Colonies which remain with us—and transferring the funds to relatively wealthy countries which have become independent. That would be a distortion of the purposes of the Colonial Development Corporation. I therefore hope that the Amendment will be rejected.

Mrs. Eirene White: It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) chose the


metaphor about the feeding bottle, because I trust that his young daughter will not one day be fed with a bottle and the next day be put straight on solid food. That would be a very poor nursing practice. If the hon. Member pays close attention to his daughter's progress he will see that there is a period in which she will need both the bottle and solid food. Surely that is the correct analogy to the subject which we are discussing. We are discussing these territories which need a little of each. It is because we are anxious about the position of countries which are emerging into independence or have recently emerged into independence that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) has moved the Amendment.
I do not think we should permit ourselves to be misled by concentrating exclusively on Ghana and Malaya, which for particular reasons—owing to tin and rubber in one case and to cocoa in another—may be favourably placed. We shall shortly have to consider Nigeria, which although it has great resources also has great territories and populations to sustain. Within a foreseeable time we may consider the Federation of West Indies. The fact that it became independent politically would not solve all its economic problems. It is misleading for the hon. Member for Beckenham to suggest that the particular instances to which he referred covered the whole problem before us today, and he should look at it in a wider aspect.

Mr. Goodhart: Would not the hon. Lady agree that Nigeria and the West Indies have extensive sterling balances?

Mrs. White: Nigeria has vast problems of communication and of other developments which are quite different in scale from those in Ghana. We cannot base the principle of a Bill too closely on two instances when Colonies of a somewhat different nature may have to be dealt with under it.
In the White Paper which preceded the
Bill the Government set out their roles. In paragraph 59 the Government rejected the proposals which had been made in the House in an earlier debate that there should be a Commonwealth Development Agency and Bank. They said that they had discussed this idea with other members of the Commonwealth but that, on

the whole, it had not met with favour. I can see that an idea like that, attractive though it may be, would, perhaps, be an over-elaborate machine to set up for the purposes that I am sure we ail have at heart, but surely the natural course of development is that which my hon. Friend is suggesting—to follow the good old British way of building up on existing institutions and allowing them to develop as circumstances permit.
Our real quarrel with the Government is over C.D.C. The Government's whole tendency is not to encourage C.D.C. to expand, but to crib, cabin and confine it whenever they can. It is true that in this Bill they are permitting some extension, but that is only as a result of the great protest there was on all sides of the House on the Ghana Bill. The Government's original intention was not as broad as that contained in this Bill.
That is why we feel that it is wrong, in a rapidly-changing and developing Commonwealth, not to give to the Colonial Development Corporation the broadest reasonable powers and functions that it may have. After all, those powers are only permissive—the Corporation is not obliged to undertake these things, but we should not make it impossible, by legislation, for it to do so.
Although we have had a number of these Overseas Resources Development Measures in the last few years, the fact remains that we might have to wait quite a while for further legislation and, as a result, miss certain opportunities. It is that kind of consideration that leads us to feel that the Bill as presented is too narrow; that we ought to enlarge the potential scope—not necessarily immediate in action at all, but to make it possible for the Colonial Development Corporation, which has done very valuable work in some of the very territories we are discussing, to have much greater freedom to continue that work.
Much play has been made with the idea that if we allow money to go into the territories in question we will thereby be depriving other territories of possible resources. No one, for example, could be more concerned than I with the needs of Kenya but, again, we are dealing not merely with money provided directly by Her Majesty's Government but, possibly, money raised from outside sources. There might very well be occasions when


it would be impossible to raise money from outside sources for the other countries in the Commonwealth. It would not be available, and, therefore, not divertible for investment, say, in Kenya.
It must be remembered that one cannot dictate to a possible lender where his money should be used. We might get it for one place where we could not get it for another. Are we, therefore, to deprive C.D.C. of powers to act as a possible agency for the provision of these funds? If so, what is the reason for the deprivation? I think it is that the Government have this strong preference for the other organisation that has been referred to. It is true that the Finance Corporation is sustained, among other bodies, by the Bank of England but it is, finally, a matter of private investment.
It is this apparent dislike of the Government—I put it quite strongly; one has only to read the last Annual Report to learn the clashes there really have been between C.D.C. and the Government—that makes us suspect the reasons for the limitations placed by the Bill upon the C.D.C. We have had a number of speeches from hon. Members on both sides on the need for a much more positive attitude towards Commonwealth development, and the kind of machinery that might be used for it. It is disappointing to have, again and again, a negative Government response or, at best, a reluctant one. We shall be discussing other points connected with the matter as we proceed, but this is my main reason for supporting the Amendment.

Mr. Brian Harrison: I find the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) extremely interesting, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will use it as an opportunity to think again about the Bill. The series of Overseas Resources Development Acts presents a fascinating exercise in how legislation can be modified to suit varying occasions and the growth and change of fortunes in the Commonwealth, and I feel that anything that would put a limitation on the permissive powers of the Secretary of State to allow the C.D.C. to use both its good offices and its funds as they may be required throughout the Commonwealth would be regrettable. I

therefore think that the Amendment should be considered most carefully.
I appreciate the point that will no doubt be made about the very limited resources this country has for investment overseas. I can well understand that it might be regarded as impossible to use those resources other than in the Colonial Territories, or in the managerial capacities mentioned in the Bill, to anything except a very limited extent. But even if those resources, limited as we know them to be, should remain so, there is nothing to stop the Secretary of State, under this Bill, from canalising them and saying where they should go. If this subsection remains as it stands, it very much ties the Secretary of State of the day from using his imagination and effectively helping parts of the Commonwealth.
Personally, I should like to see a wider form of investment organisation for dealing with the whole of the Commonwealth, but I appreciate that, in present circumstances, that is not practical. Nevertheless, I would ask my hon. Friend very seriously to consider whether something can be done to widen the scope of the Bill and, in particular, to enable the managerial side to be used more extensively outside the Commonwealth. If this subsection were deleted, the prospect of technical help being available throughout the whole of the Commonwealth, and drawn from a pool set up in this country, would be one which must appeal to anybody who looks forward to complete development, for the benefit not only of ourselves but of the people in the various parts of the Commonwealth. I am not sure that, as it stands, the Amendment is completely practical, but, at least, it is one which should be considered very carefully before my hon. Friend decides whether or not it must be rejected.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. George Chetwynd: I am grateful for the remarks of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) and I hope that they will not fall on deaf ears on the Government Front Bench. Those remarks, coming from the hon. Member, with his Commonwealth connections, reinforce the plea that has been made by my hon. Friends for reconsideration of the scope of the Colonial Development Corporation.
I should feel much happier about the situation and less strongly about the


Amendment if I were sure that private investment would go into these emergent territories. The whole reason for the setting up of the Corporation was the fact that private investment had not gone into these emergent territories and, therefore, this body had to be called in to redress the balance and do the job which private enterprise was either not competent or not willing to do.
It seems to me that the need for capital will be even greater in these emergent territories than it is at the moment. I feel that they should not be forced to go outside the Commonwealth to get that money if they can possibly get it from us. The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) spoke of West Germany and the United States in this connection. I should be very sorry indeed if the newly emergent Ghana, Malaya or West Indies were forced to go to West Germany or to the United States for capital which we should provide from this country. It would not be in the best interests of this country or of those emergent territories.
We cannot suddenly break the link between the Colonies and the mother country the moment the Colonies get their political freedom. We must have a continuing interest in their welfare, their economic structure and so on. Political independence does not automatically mean that the new country is able at once to stand on its own feet financially and economically. In view of the fact that there is the possibility of the West Indies reaching that status in, perhaps, five years' time, it seems to me that we ought to accept the Amendment and extend the scope of the work of the C.D.C. so that it can continue to do the job which it is now doing so well in so many parts of the Commonwealth.
It has been proved—and the Government admit it—that the C.D.C. is an admirable agency to do this work. In fact, the Government have said that where schemes have already been in operation with success they should continue. The Government say that the C.D.C. can act as managers and advisers, provided a commercial return is obtained on such advice and management. It seems to me that no country will call in the C.D.C. on a managerial basis unless it can have some financial stake in the

enterprise which it is called upon to manage.
The provision for managerial assistance will be academic unless the Amendment is accepted and the C.D.C. is allowed to continue to invest money as it does at present. It is an admirable agency to do the job, and our complaint is that the Government are automatically excluding it from further action once a Colony becomes independent. We do not think that it should be excluded automatically but that it should be permitted to go ahead and do the work for which it was originally set up, namely, to bring about an improved standard of living in those countries.
We cannot cut ourselves off from these countries once they are independent politically. It seems strange that the party opposite, which has for so long taken a pride in the Commonwealth and Empire, at this stage wishes to pull down the curtain between the Colonies and this country, while we on this side of the Committee, who have been chided by hon. Members opposite from time to time on throwing away the Empire, are striving so hard to foster the connection between the Colonies and the mother country. The hon. Member for Maldon pointed to that paradox, and I hope the Government will have second thoughts and permit the C.D.C. to continue to do what it is already doing and what it considers to be right.

Mr. John Tilney: I wish to take up a point mentioned by the hon. Member for Stockton-on-Tees (Mr. Chetwynd) who, with the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), suggested that private enterprise would not produce the capital that was necessary for the underdeveloped countries. I think that is true if those under-developed countries keep their taxation as high as they do at present. Both in Ghana and Nigeria taxation is higher for companies than it is in this country and I believe, as many of their leaders believe, that that taxation will have to be reduced.
None of the so-called rich countries to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred started their economic development with taxation anything like as high as it is in Ghana and Nigeria. I am sure that some of the


newly emergent territories and independent countries will have to think again if they are to attract private enterprise investment.
May I say a word about the Commonwealth Development Finance Corporation—

Mr. Callaghan: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the point which he has just made, surely the money that those countries are raising by this relatively high level of taxation is being devoted to very necessary social expenditure such as communications, education, health and so on. How are they ever to hoist themselves up by their own bootstraps unless they have this revenue? How are they to attract enterprise from overseas?

Mr. Tilney: I think they will get a good deal of capital from private enterprise, especially after last year's Finance Act. The Overseas Trade Corporations ought to encourage private enterprise in this country to go where taxation is low. I see no reason why the money raised by taxing the increased economic output from private enterprises established for the future in those territories should not produce the revenue which hon. Members opposite say is so necessary, but that money must be borrowed either from private enterprise or from some other source.
I hope that the C.D.F.C. will be allowed to operate outside this country if necessary. At the moment it is backed by
private enterprise and by the Bank of England. I can see no reason why that body should not be allowed to go to America and so channel the funds of America into territories which are not allowed to go in their own right and borrow. Many of those territories want British knowledge and technicians. They know our methods. Unfortunately, we have not got enough money to give them what they want for their capital development, but this difficulty could be overcome if the C.D.F.C., with the C.D.C., obtained that money. This Bill contains powers for the C.D.C. to do that. I hope that both bodies will do this in the interests of the expansion of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Charles Royle: The hon. Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) has not encouraged us quite so

much as has the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison). I am not so sure about the intentions of the hon. Member for Wavertree with regard to our Amendment, but I hope that my remarks will bring him round to supporting our point of view. I am sure that the persuasive eloquence of the hon. Member for Maldon will encourage the Government Front Bench to accept our Amendment. Certainly in the light of his great knowledge of these matters, we on these benches are encouraged.
If the Government Front Bench does not see fit to accept the deletion of the subsection, perhaps the Government can find a better way of achieving what we seek to do before we reach a later stage of the Bill.
I am drawn to my feet largely by the remarks of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart). He is to be congratulated on being at a time of life when he goes home to help with the feeding of the babes. I would only say that by the time he reaches my age, if he uses the same analogy that he has already used this evening, he will have changed his mind completely on a matter of principle such as we are now discussing. By then, he will have discovered that his children, much later in life, will need assistance, and, while it may not be just a question of milk, I assure him that much stronger foods will need to be paid for out of his pocket before he has finished with his children.
That being so, I support the contention
of my hon. Friends. Unfortunately, the only part of the Colonies which I have had the opportunity of visiting has been the West Indies, and while these islands are not yet an independent sovereign country, the time will come when they will be, as we all know and hope. Later this year, they are celebrating the establishment of the Federation.
I think in terms of the West Indies, and perhaps in these few remarks I may be able to illustrate the point from my own knowledge of that part of the world. Private enterprise there has certainly failed, but the need will go on for a long time for help from this Parliament, through the Colonial Development Corporation, to the West Indies, and even after they have become an independent sovereign country.
I am thinking, for example, of transport. How long is it to be before there is an efficient and adequate means of transport between the various islands of the Leeward and Windward groups? Nothing has been done, though I had hoped that the C.D.C. might have started on that work quite a time ago. At any rate, they will be doing it, I hope, one day. I do not want it to be said, after the West Indies Federation has become an independent country, that we shall no longer, through the activities of the C.D.C., be able to help them in matters such as that.
May I give briefly a very simple, small illustration of what I mean? It may well be that in the West Indies, soon after federation, and, at all events, before independence is achieved, the two mainland territories of British Honduras and British Guiana will be in the Federation. I am thinking particularly of British Honduras, where there is an admirable hotel, which had just been opened after being built by the C.D.C. Ultimately, it had to be handed over to a private undertaking, but at that time we were told by the representatives of the Colonial Development Corporation that so much money had been spent on it that, for the time being, no more could be found.
Would they not attract more tourists to British Honduras if they had a swimming pool, and if they possessed a small fleet of motor boats to take people who stay at the hotel out to the Cays? Suppose that such an hotel were established out there and independence came, are we to say that the C.D.C. would have no power of extending its activities in these matters?
That is a very simple illustration, but one which contains the principle of what we are now discussing. I hope the hon. Gentleman will see his way to accept this Amendment, so that we shall look after our children, even though they have reached the adolescent stage, and not allow them to starve for want of our own efforts.

Mr. J. Johnson: As usual, the Government Front Bench seems to me to sit alone in these matters. It seems to have less support behind it on this occasion than it had on the Suez question. I have not found a single hon. Member behind the Government Front Bench speaking in its support.
I want to take up what the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) said about the Colonial Territories doing something for themselves. The hon. Member was hinting at the fact that we in the mother country had been, to put it bluntly, living on "tick" for a number of years on the colonial balances, mainly from Malaya and Ghana. I agree with him. I think the hon. Gentleman hinted that if we had allowed them to use more of their colonial balances for their own internal development, we should be in a happier position today. These lands are rather like the Soviet Union was twenty or thirty years ago, or is even now, and like China is today.
These new communities just cannot find the savings, by abstinence in their own territories, to provide the assets for their own development unless they have a totalitarian system, tighten their belts and actually live in a police State. A democratic State must depend on outside help, and we must help them in this way. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should have helped them much more in the past.
6.45 p.m.
We are in this plight at the moment because we have not allowed Ghana and these other territories to develop through the use of their balances. We brought down the chopper and stopped them having any United Kingdom money to invest in these capital development schemes. I hope the Minister is listening to some of the hon. Members who sit behind him, and I hope he will also listen to what Lenin said about good Bolsheviks. One cannot hope that the Members of the present Government will be Bolsheviks, but at least they might remember that Lenin said that a good Bolshevik makes mistakes—and this Government make many mistakes—but that the good Bolshevik never makes the same mistake twice. I hope they will study that, and change their mind before the end of the debate.
I now want to take up something
which the Under-Secretary of State said in the last debate. He criticised the party on these benches, and said:
What I find difficult to understand in the point of view put forward by the Opposition is that they should be anxious to divert the resources of the C.D.C. from the Colonies to the Commonwealth—a proposition which in


certain cases is not particularly attractive to ordinary investment; into areas in, for instance, Australia and South Africa, which are normally very attractive to investment."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1958; Vol. 581, c. 269.]
I challenged him in that debate and asked if he could tell us of any occasion on which we had said that we would do this—take money earmarked for, say, Tanganyika or Nyasaland and use it for investment in South Africa or Australia. Of course, the hon. Gentleman dodged it, or was evasive, as are all hon. Members on the benches opposite.
I hope the hon. Gentleman has a copy of the pamphlet from which I am now going to quote, for it states to what the Labour Party is committed. On page 72 of the pamphlet, we say:
…the Government"—
that is, the next Labour Government, which will be within a short while—
would therefore at once announce plans to expand Britain's aid by allocating an average of 1 per cent. of our national income over a period of years as Britain's contribution to the development of backward and Colonial territories through the existing Government, the United Nations and other appropriate agencies.
Let us be fair about this. We have just had a two days' debate in which the word "smear" was used a great deal, a word which has become one of our current dirty words—dirty in a double sense—like the word "peace." Let us have our quotations correct. The Labour Party says that we can allocate something like £160 million, which is 1 per cent. of the overall, geographical national income, to help develop the dependent territories. Of course, this obviously does not mean countries with highly developed economies like South Africa, with her gold, textile and other industries, or Australia with her motor car industry. Of course it does not. As we know, the Prime Minister himself has just been inspecting the motor car industry at Melbourne.
In this context we are talking of helping those territories which the Bill is to deprive of present aid. That is what we say quite openly and honestly. Mr. Sam Watson said it for us at our party conference two years ago at Blackpool. If we are to live up to our moral obligations to the peoples overseas and make up for some of the things we did in the past in the way of lack of development,

we must have some self-denial and abstinence among the 50 million people at home in order that those people may be helped.
We said this quite openly, and we are sorry, though not really disappointed, for we did not expect better, that the Government are taking the attitude they are. We can but hope that they will listen to our arguments and attempt to give some explanation of what they are doing. We do not think it ought to be done, and hon. Members behind them also are convinced that they are pursuing a completely wrong course in cutting off aid, in the shape of capital investment, to territories like Ghana, Malaya and others which are to become independent Dominions in the next year or two.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: I approach this Amendment from a purely practical point of view. We have a very limited sum of money to deal with, and it is suggested that we should spread that sum of money throughout the Commonwealth to such an extent that, in effect, there will be too many infants and not enough money to provide milk for the bottles to raise them at all. Therefore, I suggest we should keep the sum we are talking about to raise those we can to a certain level.
I am all in favour of investment in the Commonwealth, but let that be left to the C.D.F.C. or similar bodies or private enterprise. Let us not try to spread this £150 million too far, but let us keep it for the Colonial Territories.

Mr. Callaghan: As this argument has now been raised twice, and it is so fallacious, will the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) deal with this question? If his objection and the objection of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) is to spreading the additional £50 million over a wider area because it will then be too thinly spread, why not do the same job by increasing the borrowing power of the Colonial Development Corporation so that any money it borrows may be used in these newly emergent territories? We do not really mind in what way, financially, the job is done. What we complain about is the difficulty these territories enumerated by my hon. Friends will have in finding the investment necessary once this particular form of it is cut off.

Mr. Baldwin: That simply means that we ought to increase the £150 million available in the Bill. I am all in favour of increasing that, but I do not want to see the £150 million spread over too wide an area. I do not want the Colonial Territories which are entitled to look to us for money to be deprived of what is necessary for their development. Let the emergent territories obtain their money in the world market, from the C.D.F.C. or some other source; but let us not touch the £150 million we have to spend in the Colonial Territories.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I wish to remind the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin) of what was said by his hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) in the debate on 28th January:
I feel we should go beyond that, because as a nation we must have a very real sense of responsibility towards the new territories which are now becoming full members of the British Commonwealth."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th January, 1958; Vol. 581, c. 262.]
It seems to me that that is the kernel of the whole discussion.
The hon. Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) gave us an illustration. To him I would say that when he becomes as old as I am he will, perhaps, think himself lucky if he is clear of responsibility for his children when they are twenty-five. We are considering here emergent territories which are not able to stand on their own feet financially. The world being what it is, the British constitution being what it is, and the things said in this House being what they were—that we would bring these people to a sense of nationhood—we had to grant them full political responsibility as soon as they were entitled to it. Also, as it seems to me, because, in the past, the private finance which did begin to develop these countries drew such fat profits from them, at the expense of a low standard of life for the people, they are now in a difficult financial position.
I suggest that we are not really looking at a mere £50 million extra which is being given to these territories over a period of years through the C.D.C. We have a national income of about £18,000 million a year. We are thinking here of the British Commonwealth as it has developed, something of which, as has been said, we are very proud. We are

very proud that we have brought these countries to emergence, to full national status. If they cannot obtain their financial aid from this country, they will get it, I suggest, where they can; and we know one country which will be very willing to give it.
Democracy today is on trial. Think what we may, there is no surety that, in the end, democracy will prevail. I suggest that the Committee should take a big view of this matter, as so many hon. Gentlemen opposite have done. I hope that the Minister will give way on it and think again. He did try to ride away last time on an argument about moneys invested in profitable enterprises in Australia, Canada and elsewhere, whereas here there is some financial risk. There is a financial risk and, in the circumstances, a private investor will probably think twice; I do not blame him for that. We, on the other hand, want to see the Commonwealth grow in prestige greater than it is today, and this is a way in which some small assistance could be given to that end.

Sir Albert Braithwaite: I hope that the Minister will not accept the Amendment. This is an extending Bill for the Colonial Development Corporation. The Corporation is quite inadequate to carry out the vast schemes which the emergent territories require, and the Government will have to think again, on much broader lines than these, if they are to do any successful financing of the bigger undertakings which are visualised.
Reference has been made to Ghana. The great Volta River scheme there involves £250 million. The Bill before us now could not venture anywhere near it. There must be an entirely different conception of finance in dealing with these great projects.
I welcome the Bill because it extends the operation of the C.D.C., for the work of which I have nothing but praise. I think that the Corporation deserves the commendation of everyone for the work it has done.

Mr. Callaghan: We are restricting it here.

Sir A. Braithwaite: We are trying to do two things at the same time. The work of the C.D.C. must continue on


the scale envisaged. After all, it never had more than £100 million, and now we are giving it £50 million more to help in carrying on its activities. Meanwhile, it is high time that the Government, the colonial Powers, and the Dominions got together on a sound financial scheme in order properly to finance these countries which require development commensurate with their national resources. There are very big problems here.
I hope, therefore, that my hon. Friend who is, I know, very interested in this subject, will say that it is a wrong conception to impose the C.D.C. on all our capital development in all these territories; it is something not within its scope and capacity and certainly not within the finances which we can at this moment raise in this country.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Creech Jones: No one would wish to circumscribe the development of our territories overseas by saying that only through the Colonial Development Corporation should loans and grants of capital be secured. On the other hand, the time has come for much more comprehensive consideration of the needs of the Commonwealth and the establishment of the requisite machinery for assisting the Commonwealth in obtaining the capital it requires in the development which is so urgently necessary.
I gather from the last debate that the Government are giving further consideration to the financial arrangements as between the Colonial Development Corporation and the Government. I hope that that consideration will be speeded up so that the Corporation is not required to wait unduly long before it is aware of what further facilities can be made available to it in pursuit of its excellent work. I would not put the interpretation that has been put on the Amendment, for the simple reason that one is trying to secure the services of the Corporation, not for vast schemes like the Volta scheme, which are obviously outside the scope of the Corporation, but for legitimate, economic development to increase various economic activities inside the territories which have now emerged.
I must claim some responsibility for the Act which we are seeking to amend, and also for the inauguration of the Colonial Development Corporation. It may be that it went through a period of considerable difficulty, and it must be said that what the Labour Government of those days and I had in mind was an organisation which could come to the assistance of colonial Governments as well as private enterprise in dealing with necessary economic work which otherwise would not be done in the territory because of the likely risks involved. I must confess that in those days we did not visualise such a rapid, dynamic urge for nationalism in the respective territories with which we were concerned. Political development has gone on at such a terrific pace that, whether we like it or not, independence had to be conceded. Unfortunately, economic development has not kept pace with the requirements of political development. It is no good hoping that independence can be assured or a democratic Government established unless the economic basis of its territories is right and unless a variety of economic activities can be pursued in the territory concerned.
That is what is happening and what has happened in regard to the emergent territories. Let us take Ghana. I want to correct the view of one hon. Member that Ghana herself was in receipt of a substantial sum from us under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act. The extraordinary thing about Ghana is that she was extraordinarily reluctant to receive any money whatsoever under colonial development and welfare. Indeed, frequently the persuasive powers of the Colonial Office had to be used so that necessary developments should go forward because of the reluctance of the Ghana Government to take money from the British taxpayer under the colonial development and welfare funds.
Therefore, it cannot be argued that they have done fairly well under the Act. In more recent years, they possibly received more generous treatment than they demanded. We are now faced with emerging territories where there is very great danger, unless the economic basis is consolidated that the work which Britain has been doing over the
last fifty years may be undone, certainly


weakened, because of instability arising from the inadequacy of the economic arrangements. If these territories have reached political independence at a pace which could not have been foreseen only a few years ago, if the economic basis is not as solid as one would have wished, and if we had left very heavy liabilities in these territories to which we were already committed before independence, it seems to me very necessary that those institutions and facilities that we created when we thought these territories would develop over quite a long period should continue to be made available to these emerging States.
Therefore, consideration should be
urgently given by the Government as to whether something more than the creation of a private financial corporation can be done. Is it not possible to conceive the Colonial Development Corporation itself engaging in a group of activities in emergent territories with the assistance and good will of the British Government? I do not believe that the provision of technical knowledge and "know-how" which the Corporation has acquired through a vast accumulation of experience is sufficient. We know that some of these emergent territories would be very glad to have the additional assistance which might come through the Colonial Development Corporation by way of grants and the financing of certain activities which are so desperately needed.
I press this point all the more because Ghana, which is the obvious country—it is equally true of Malaya—built up a very substantial cocoa stabilisation fund. Cocoa is the major feature of their economy. If cocoa is the major feature, then one must appreciate that a time may come when that will prove very unsatisfactory and inadequate to sustain them. Already we know that the price of cocoa has dropped considerably and that there was a very real fear that Ghana would be sadly let down so far as their economic arrangements are concerned. Many development projects for the time being had to be abandoned. It is not enough to cushion this new country by dependence on cocoa. Something more is required. There should be a more mixed economy, the introduction of new industry and new economic activities so that, if cocoa is a casualty in the economic life of the Gold Coast, at least the

country can prosper although the cocoa crop or the price may have dropped.
I therefore feel that, because political independence has come so rapidly, there is a case for continuing all the practical assistance that we can and helping these territories to raise the capital they desperately need for further activities. I do not think it is good enough for us to say, "Very well, you can go to the American money market or raise the funds that you need elsewhere", because for quite a long period to come confidence has to be built up. I do not think that that confidence will come while the need is so desperate.
I hope that in the immediate future we can find an institution which will make funds available. I think that for the moment the Colonial Development Corporation should be permitted to continue the fine work it has started in these territories, despite the fact that independence has been reached. It would be done with the consent of the independent Government itself. It would not be imposed upon it but would be merely the holding out of something which the independent country needs.
It has been suggested that our resources are not adequate for the purpose. The capital involved in the type of economic activities for which claims would be launched is not so terrific as to beggar the operations of the Colonial Development Corporation in raising capital from other sources than those now available to it. This larger problem of the financing of the Corporation should be kept in mind so that it can function in emerging territories. For these reasons, I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to my hon. Friend's Amendment.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): I hope that the Committee will consider it appropriate that I should try at this stage to answer some of the many points which have been raised, from both sides of the Committee, in the course of what all hon. Members would agree has been a valuable and interesting debate.
I am glad that the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) did
something which it is important should be done when he tried to bring into perspective the real status of the economies of countries like Ghana and Malaya. We


should be wrong if we considered these countries as still being required to have the crutch of United Kingdom economic assistance. They are independent countries, they are proud of their independence and they are perfectly capable of carrying forward their independence, not only politically but economically. I would go so far as to say that they would resent our giving an impression here in the United Kingdom that we thought they were incapable of that form of political maturity.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan)—and other hon. Members have asked the same question—expressed the hope that the Government would think again concerning the main principle underlying the Bill. The manuscript Amendment that the hon. Member has moved has, in fact, the same effect as the Amendment which was originally tabled but which, for one reason or another, is out of order. The Amendment strikes right at the heart of the Bill and of the policy put forward by Her Majesty's Government in the White Paper (Cmd. 237).
The legal position at present is that all territories which were designated Colonies under the Colonial Development and Welfare Act, 1940, are within the scope of the Colonial Development Corporation even if they have become independent or, for that matter, I understand, even though they have left the Commonwealth—that is, apart from Ghana, which was dealt with separately in the Ghana Independence Act.
We have felt it proper, therefore, not only to set out a definite policy for the future operations of the Colonial Development Corporation in respect of independent Commonwealth countries, but also to establish it clearly in the form of legislation. It is the Government's policy that the Colonial Development Corporation should be retained for the purpose for which it was originally created. That purpose was to procure investment and to bring about development in those territories with which the United Kingdom had a special relationship and for which it had a special responsibility.
After all, in the case of the Colonies, we are not only the metropolitan power but we have control ultimately over both their political and their economic policies.

Therefore, special responsibilities fall on us to ensure that, as far as possible, their standard of living is improved and the development of their economic resources is properly carried out.
7.15 p.m.
We believe—this is our central principle—that it would be wrong to divert the Colonial Development Corporation from that central purpose to a much wider field of activity, the other instruments for dealing with which are, in our view, more appropriate to the successful development of the independent Commonwealth than development taking place as a result of the initiative of a State Corporation.
Turning from that general proposition to deal with some of the points raised by hon. Members, on both sides, I should like to make this next point clear. It is not a question of whether the Government are reluctant to pursue and encourage Commonwealth development. In the Bill, we are concerned with making certain that, not the most important instrument, but one of the instruments, for procuring Commonwealth development is used in the most appropriate way. The controversy between the two sides of the Committee is that we have different views of how that instrument can best be used. There is, however, no issue on the general subject of wishing to bring about as wide an extent of economic development in the Commonwealth, in the interests of its own people and of the world in general, as is possible within the resources at our disposal.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East referred to the diversification of industry in the under-developed countries of the independent Commonwealth. Bearing in mind the immense needs which, I fully admit, exist and with, for example, the immense programme of the second Five-Year Plan in India, I should like the hon. Member to consider how far the money which could be made available through the Colonial Development Corporation, without taking away from any of the dependent territories, would contribute in any way effectively to the diversification of industry in India, Malaya, Pakistan, Ghana and Ceylon, which were the sort of members of the commonwealth that, I think, the hon. Member had in mind.
There is a danger—the point was made by at least two of my hon. Friends—of spreading such jam as we have too thinly. Where we have a special obligation, as we have with our Colonial Territories, surely it is right that this instrument should be used to ensure that the jam gets to the places for which it is intended.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) drew my attention to my efforts on an earlier occasion to help Members in his party to understand the policy which had been put forward earlier on their behalf. The hon. Member and the Labour Party pamphlet mentioned a figure of 1 per cent. of the gross national product or national income. At the moment, we are employing through various channels 1¼ per cent. This is pointed out in the White Paper. My impression, therefore, is that the hon. Member and his colleagues, instead of forecasting that they will be able to put greater resources at the disposal of the dependent Commonwealth, would, in fact, make smaller resources available.
Let me take the point further. If I have read the Labour Party document correctly, the 1 per cent. would cover not only contributions to be made to the Commonwealth, but also contributions to be made through the various international organisations.

Mr. J. Johnson: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but surely he has not read the pamphlet, despite the hours of study in the evening about which he told me. I gave him a quotation from the pamphlet, which he can check, in which he said that we would allocate 1 per cent., or £160 million, via agencies like the United Nations, whereas at the moment this country is allocating about £50 or £60 million. The hon. Gentleman does not appreciate that the per cent. to which he refers includes money in the City of London and all investment, both public and otherwise. Surely that is the difference.

Mr. Alport: The hon. Member will realise that there is only a definite total of resources available for this purpose and, in so far as he diverts investment from one channel to another, he is not increasing the total available. He is merely producing a different tap, as it were, as a means of running the resources

out of a reservoir the level of which remains stable all the time. He is merely producing a façade which appears to promise to the independent territories additonal economic support but which makes no difference, if in fact it does not act even to their detriment.

Mr. Johnson: rose—

Mr. Alport: I agree that the conclusions which I have arrived at are not to the hon. Member's satisfaction, but perhaps I can conic to other points raised in the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wavertree (Mr. Tilney) referred to the C.D.F.C. and said that he hoped it would be possible for it to find resources and obtain money and capital from abroad. As far as I know, there is nothing to prevent the C.D.F.C. doing that at present, subject to C.I.C. agreement. I have no doubt that it is one of the things which, in accordance with the policy set out in the White Paper, would be extremely acceptable if such a case should arise in practice.

Mr. Tilney: I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that in the case of the World Bank there would have to be a Government guarantee.

Mr. Alport: I believe that my hon. Friend is quite right, but I was dealing with obtaining funds from overseas generally, which seems perhaps more practicable in this case.
I turn to another point which was raised by the hon. Member for Salford. West
(Mr. Royle), who said that private enterprise had made no contribution in the West Indies. At the root of our controversy over the Amendment is the fact that we on this side of the Committee believe that private enterprise has made, is making, and can make a major and overwhelming contribution to Commonwealth development, whereas hon. Members opposite say that that is not the case.

Mr. Creech Jones: rose—

Mr. Alport: If I may continue to address myself to the hon. Member for Salford, West, he quoted the example of the West Indies. Perhaps I may take the figures which appear in Cmd. 195, "The Colonial Territories, 1956–57", which set out the position quite clearly. Loans between Colonial Governments


and Her Majesty's Government, that is loans from the United Kingdom to Colonial Governments, amounted to £1 million in the years 1954–56. Net capital raised, that is from private sources by the Colonial Governments in the London market, amounted to £8 million. Estimates of varying degrees of reliability, and I accept that it is not easy to secure a final estimate, show that capital represented by private investment in the Colonial Territories amounted to £65 million. Therefore, for these years the balance is £1 million of Government-provided funds for development and, on the other side, £65 million plus £8 million, making a total of £73 million from private enterprise.

Mr. Royle: Does not that prove, not that there is too much investment by private enterprise, but too little by the British Government?

Mr. Alport: But the hon. Member said that private enterprise had failed in its task in the West Indies, and all that I was doing was to show the disproportionate contribution made by private investment there.

Mr. Royle: That is not quite right, the hon. Gentleman will find from the OFFICIAL REPORT that the word I used was "inadequate". I did not say that there had been no investment, and I should not like to say that the position was anything like what the hon. Gentleman suggested that I described it to be. The point is that investment has not been sufficient to meet the demand, and I was using the West Indies as an example.

Mr. Alport: If the hon. Member is supporting the Amendment, then the policy which he advocates will probably lead to less public investment being available for the West Indies than has been the case previously.

Mr. Callaghan: Why?

Mr. Alport: Because the whole field of investment for the C.D.C. is to be extended. I accept the view that over a substantial part of the independent Commonwealth total resources will always remain limited.
I should like to give the reasons which have prompted us in putting forward the policy which we advocate. We believe that there is no difficulty in finding plenty

of scope for the finance which is being made available under the Bill in the Colonial Territories themselves. We also believe that the provisions which we have made in respect of managing agencies, and of the C.D.C. acting in an advisory capacity, will ensure that full use is made of the experience of its manpower and of the managerial experience which the C.D.C. has accumulated over the past ten years or so. We feel, therefore, that there is no danger of any of the resources which are being made available to the C.D.C. after the passing of the Bill in any way not being used effectively.
I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to another matter on which our policy is based. There are political objections to the extension of the activities of a United Kingdom Government agency in the economic field in an independent Commonwealth country. The objections do not come from our side. They come from the point of view of the Commonwealth country concerned. It is always possible that a United Kingdom statutory corporation operating in an independent Commonwealth country will come into conflict with the policy of that country, and this would mean that the United Kingdom Government automatically would be drawn into the arena.
If this danger were to be effectively avoided it would be necessary for the United Kingdom Government to exercise a much closer control over the development of the day-to-day policy of the C.D.C. and its operations in the independent Commonwealth countries than is desirable from the point of view of the United Kingdom Government or of the C.D.C. itself. Alternatively, Her Majesty's Government would always be exposed to the possibility that they might find themselves implicated in a serious controversy which arose not through any fault of the Board of the C.D.C. but simply because it had run into that controversy with the Government of the independent Commonwealth country by approaching the problem from a purely commercial point of view and necessarily being perhaps unaware of its political implications.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Gentleman has made a most important and serious


statement—that objection to the operation of C.D.C. in some of the emerging countries would not necessarily come from this country but from territories that have become independent. This is quite removed from the understanding which we on this side of the Committee have of this situation. Our view is, and our information is, that these countries would welcome the C.D.C. Has the hon. Gentleman any backing at all for the point which he has just made? Is there any single country that has become independent which has expressed the objections which the hon. Gentleman has now put into their mouths?

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Alport: I am always interested in speeches by hon. Members opposite when they are related to the problems of an independent Commonwealth country. They always tend to provide that nostalgic whiff of Victorian paternalism when dealing with the problems of an independent country which has been brought to its independence and is determined to stand on its own two feet.

Mrs. White: rose—

The Chairman: Order. I think it would be better if we have one speaker at a time.

Mr. Callaghan: May I have an answer to my question?

Mr. Alport: I propose to refer to the hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White), and perhaps she would like to intervene immediately afterwards. She said it was wrong for two independent countries, Ghana and Malaya, to be compelled to go elsewhere for capital investment.

Mrs. White: I do not say that.

Mr. Alport: I understood the hon. Lady to say that and she can correct me in a moment if I am wrong.
That statement is contrary to the realities. Immediately after independence it is natural that a Government enjoying full sovereignty and full control over its own economic policy would wish to have full freedom to go where, in the interests of its country, it will obtain the kind of financial support which it requires.

Mrs. White: On what does the hon. Member base these statements. If he

reads the last Annual Report of the Colonial Development Corporation he will see the position stated in so many words in page 8, paragraph 15 (6) and in page 9, paragraph 16. Is he saying that Lord Reith, who was responsible for this Report, is a liar? He can hardly be saying that. If he is not saying that, will he explain to us—we are entitled to know what he is saying—why Lord Reith says:
Disappointment and protest reported from Ghana and Malaya at prospect of losing CDC help…CDC has been assured on behalf of both Ghana and Malaya Governments that it would be a great pity if emerging members of Commonwealth were, at a critical stage, to be deprived of help of the experienced CDC personnel".
There then follows another matter about the term "Colonial", which we shall mention later.

Mr. Alport: None of those things will happen and it is to prevent them from happening that we are passing the Bill.

Mr. Callaghan: rose—

Mr. Alport: I must go on. I fully accept the point. Let me make it quite clear that I am not trying to argue in any way with the point of view expressed by Lord Reith in his Report, which I fully accept. All I am saying is that it is our experience and it is the common sense of the Committee that after independence there could quite easily be a political feeling of not wishing, from a political point of view, the Government of an independent country to appear to rely too closely upon the organ of another independent country, that organ having been specially created in order to secure the development of a dependent territory. That is the only point I intended to make.

Mr. Callaghan: The hon. Member is now getting close to clearing it up, but I hope he will be quite clear and explicit with us. He said two diametrically opposed things. First, he said that objections to the continuation of the operation of C.D.C. would come from these emerging territories. Secondly, he said that he fully accepts Lord Reith's statement that these territories expressed disappointment that the C.D.C. was not to carry on there. Is he merely expressing an ideological prejudice or a personal view or a theory? Which of the two statements does he now say is correct?

Mr. Alport: I am not saying that Lord Reith's statement is not obsolutely correct. Obviously it is. I am still expressing the point of view which I have expressed, and which I hope I have explained to the hon. Member's satisfaction. This point of view is also extremely important in these circumstances, because it not only has validity but it is the experience of anybody who knows the changing point of view of independent Commonwealth Governments immediately after independence has been achieved.
I regret that I have taken some time to deal with the many points which have been raised. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not press their Amendment. The Government believe firmly that private enterprise is and remains the most satisfactory instrument for the development of the independent Commonwealth and that it can make a greater contribution because of its greater resources, its experience, and its flexibility. We believe that it would be wrong and against the interests of dependent territories to divert the C.D.C. from the purpose for which it was founded.
We believe that it is most important, from the point of view of the C.D.C. itself, that it should continue to have additional opportunities to carry on the existing schemes in independent countries and to undertake management agency business and advisory business. That is provided in the Bill. But we believe that to go further than that would be against the interests of the principle of policy which we have tried to establish. In those circumstances. I hope that hon. Members opposite will not press the Amendment.

Mr. Callaghan: I try hard to be fond of the Under-Secretary of State. I always find him very agreeable and I am sure that in his personal life he is a most pleasant companion, but I am bound to say that in the House he makes a great deal of trouble for himself, in my view quite unnecessarily. I am sure that he does not misrepresent our arguments intentionally, but I hope that now and again he will try to understand what we are saying, because if he is constantly off-beat and destroying arguments which no one has used, it not only ruffles tempers on this side of the Committee—

because we are apt in the heat of debate to think that he is doing it deliberately in order to win a point instead of realising that it is a question of the natural limitations within which he is operating—but it also delays our proceedings.
His last speech is almost a classic example of the manner in which the Under-Secretary can hold up the proceedings of the Committee quite unnecessarily by failing to deal with the points that have been made in the manner in which they were intended.
Let me deal first with the point which he raised on Second Reading, which was echoed by the Colonial Secretary and which the hon. Member raised again this afternoon. It concerns the Labour Party's statement of policy in Labour's Colonial Policy. I should like to read the reference fully. The important part is only five lines and I think it will be the first time that the Committee has heard this fully. We have heard expurgated and garbled versions from the Under-Secretary. Let us go to Holy Writ and see what it contains.
The government would therefore at once announce plans to expand Britain's aid by allocating an average of 1 per cent. of our national income over a period of years as Britain's contribution"—
I ask the hon. Member to note the next words—
to the development of backward and colonial territories through the existing government, United Nations and other appropriate agencies.
I hope the hon. Member is now clear about what is intended. He tried to score what he thinks is a party point. He failed lamentably. He said that this means that we should decrease the amount invested overseas. He said on Second Reading and again today that 1¼ per cent. is at the moment being sent overseas. He taunts us with this miserable White Paper, "The United Kingdom's Rôle in Commonwealth Development", which says in paragraph 40:
Set against the average of our gross national product in that period this represents some 1¼ per cent.
But the hon. Gentleman should look at what comes before in the White Paper.
In arriving at this figure of 1¼ per cent., what has been added up? I do not complain about it being added up for this purpose, but there is our assistance to the


Colonial Development and Welfare Fund,
our assistance to the Colonial Development Corporation and our assistance in the repayment of sterling balances. Even the export-credit guarantees are included. That has nothing to do with the development of backward territories and Colonial Territories. The investment in Canada is included in this figure of 1¼ per cent. The investment in New Zealand, Australia and South Africa is included.
What the Government have done in order to arrive at the figure of 1¼ per cent.—if the hon. Member read his White Paper as well as he misrepresents our arguments he would come to the same conclusion—is to take everything that Britain is investing abroad in any part of the Commonwealth and say that it amounts to 1¼ per cent. I wonder whether I have at last destroyed this canard in the mind of the hon. Member? I shall consider my job well done if I have achieved only that.
We do not include Australia, Canada, New Zealand and South Africa. This does not include the export-credit guarantees or the repayment of sterling balances to the self-governing territories, or anything like that. Perhaps now the hon. Gentleman has understood me. I am sorry to have elaborated the point, but perhaps it has been necessary to do so on this occasion. I do not think that he hon. Gentleman deliberately misunderstands. I will never accuse him of that.
The hon. Gentleman says, "Look here, if you are going to spread this £50 million over all the territories, then the jam will be spread too thinly." I dealt with that point with the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Baldwin). We are asking that the jam should be spread to the same extent as it has been up to the present moment. The debate has ranged widely, and quite rightly so, but I wish to remind the Committee what we are asking hon. Members not to vote for. The subsection we are concerned with says:
…the expression 'colonial territory' shall not include any country or territory which becomes or has become an independent sovereign country…
It is clear that the Government are referring to Ghana, to Malaya, to Nigeria, to the West Indies. They are

saying—we all remember that this Clause arises out of our discussions on the Ghana Independence Bill—that when a country becomes independent, it shall not have the benefit, if benefit it be, of the operations of the Colonial Development Corporation. We are not asking the Government to spread the jam any more widely than it has been spread up to the moment. The Government are going to spread it more thickly. That is what it means, though they are setting aside £50 million against the £100 million already set aside. That is why I disagreed with the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Sir A. Braithwaite) when he said it was an extension of the Colonial Development Corporation activities. This is nothing of the sort; it is a restriction of those activities.
The Corporation is to be allowed to function in an ever-narrowing field. There is no extension of activities. Not only is the sum voted less, but the territories in which it can operate are fewer because the territories are becoming independent. Here is a threat, if we like to call it that—though I do not think it is intended to be—hanging over any territory which wishes to become independent. The Government are saying that as soon as independence is achieved this subsection of this Clause will apply and the territory may look no longer to the C.D.C. for any investment in the territory to diversify is economy.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) dealt adequately with the point that no one is asking or expecting that the Corporation should finance a Volta River project. We are asking that the Corporation should have the same opportunities in these territories, for the sake of the territories, that it has had up to the present. We are not asking that it should go to Australia, but only that it may be allowed to carry on in the areas in which it has been functioning. What is wrong with that? I cannot understand the narrow and confined approach of the Government to this problem.
7.45 p.m.
The Under-Secretary withdrew his statement that objections had come from the newly-emerging territories, and I do not wish to pursue that. Had the hon. Gentleman been able to sustain that


statement it might have formed an argument, but he has withdrawn it. The plain truth is that we need every agency that we can get. The world is capital-hungry. These territories, in particular, are poor because they are poor. I am sorry to put it in that way, but that is the fact. Because they are poor, they do not attract capital. Because they do not attract capital, they remain poor. It is the old story:
For whosoever hath, to him shall be given…but whosoever hath not from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
That is true of these territories.
I beg the Government to think again about the position. We are not asking for any expansion. We are asking merely that the Colonial Development Corporation

should be allowed to continue to operate in territories in which it has been operating during the last ten years. For that reason I cannot advise my hon. Friends to withdraw the Amendment. We should be untrue to our principles and to these territories which need all the assist-they can get if we did not press the matter. I hope that even at this point the hon. Gentleman may say that he is prepared to reconsider the matter between now and the Report stage. Were that assurance given I would ask that the Amendment be withdrawn. But if it is not, then we must record our votes.

Question put That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause:—

Committee divided: Ayes 159, Noes 130.

Division No. 36.]
AYES
[7.50 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Mawby, R. L.


Aitken, W. T.
Gibson-Watt, D.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Alport, C. J. M.
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Goodhart, Philip
Neave, Airey


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gower, H. R.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Graham, Sir Fergus
Oakshott, H. D.


Arbuthnot, John
Grant, W. (Woodside)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Armstrong, C. W.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Page, R. G.


Atkins, H. E.
Green, A.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Baldwin, A. E.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Partridge, E.


Barlow, Sir John
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Peel, W.J.


Barter, John
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Pitman, I. J.


Bingham, R. M.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bishop, F. P.
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macolesf'd)
Pott, H. P.


Bossom, Sir Alfred
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Profumo, J. D.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Ramsden, J. E.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Rawlinson, Peter


Bryan, P.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Redmayne, M.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Campbell, Sir David
Hornby, R. P.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Carr, Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Roper, Sir Harold


Channon, Sir Henry
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Sharples, R. C.


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Shepherd, William


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cole, Norman
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Speir, R. M.


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cooke, Robert
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Joseph, Sir Keith
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Cunningham, Knox
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Currie, G. B. H.
Kershaw, J. A.
Temple, John M.


Davidson, Viscountess
Lambert, Hon. G.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Deedes, W. F.
Leavey, J. A.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Drayson, G. B.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Vane, W. M. F.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Longden, Gilbert
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Duncan, Sir James
McKibbin, Alan
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Wall, Major Patrick


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Errington, Sir Eric
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Fisher, Nigel
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Wood, Hon. R.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maddan, Martin
Woollam, John Victor


Freeth, Denzil
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.



Gammans, Lady
Marshall, Douglas
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Mathew, R.
Mr. Barber and Mr. Hughes-Young




NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Holman, P.
Parker, J.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Houghton, Douglas
Pearson, A.


Awbery, S. S.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Peart, T. F.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hoy, J. H.
Pentland, N.


Beswick, Frank
Hubbard, T. F.
Popplewell, E.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Prentice, R. E.


Blackburn, F.
Hunter, A. E.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Blenkinsop, A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Probert, A. R.


Blyton, W. R.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Randall, H. E.


Boardman, H.
Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Rankin, John


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Rhodes, H.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Ross, William


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Royle, C.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Kenyon, C.
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lawson, G. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Clunie, J.
Lipton, Marcus
Steele, T.


Coldrick, W.
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stones, W. (Consett)


Cove, W. G.
MacColl, J. E.
Sylvester, G. O.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
McGovern, J.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McInnes, J.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Deer, G.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Usborne, H. C.


Delargy, H. J.
McLeavy, Frank
Viant, S. P.


Diamond, John
Mahon, Simon
Wade, D. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Walkins, T. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mason, Roy
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mellish, R. J.
Wells, Peroy (Faversham)


Fernyhough, E.
Mikardo, Ian
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mitchison, G. R.
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Monslow, W.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N. E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Moody, A. S.
Wilkins, W. A.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Willey, Frederick


Grey, C. F.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, David (Neath)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Grimond, J.
Oram, A. E.
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Hannan, W.
Oswald, T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Owen, W. J.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hastings, S.
Padley, W. E.
Woof, R. E.


Hayman, F. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)



Harbison, Miss M.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Holmes and Mr. J. T. Price.

Mr. Creech Jones: I beg to move, in page 1, line 14, to leave out "Colonial" and to insert "Commonwealth".

The Chairman: It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we also took the identical Amendments in page 2, line 6, and Clause 2, page 1 lines 1 and 10.

Mr. Creech Jones: The purpose of this group of Amendments is obvious. They are designed to ensure that we fall into line with the general practice, now that the term "colonial" has become almost a term of opprobrium, by omitting the word "Colonial" and using the word "Commonwealth" in its place.
It will be noticed that the Government themselves are proposing that the functions of the Corporation may extend to certain of the independent territories
to act as managing agents or perform advisory functions for any purpose for which they could do so in a colonial territory

as set out in subsection (3) of this Clause. It means that henceforward the Colonial Development Corporation may continue certain functions in territories which have ceased to be colonial. It will be for the convenience of, and more satisfactory to, the Governments of those independent territories if the title of the Corporation is changed as we suggest.

Almost all over the world the term "colonial" has had to withstand a pretty vicious attack. In the eyes of colonial peoples it stands for the tutelage and domination with which they have been associated in the past, and therefore it has become a decidedly unpopular and most unlikeable term. That is true not only of Colonies but of dependent territories and independent territories.

Already the Government have been seized of the importance of retreating from the term "colonial". They have renamed the Colonial Service the "Overseas Civil Service". They have altered the name of the Crown Agents


for the Colonies to "Crown Agents for Overseas Governments". The Colonial Audit Department now becomes the "Overseas Audit Department", and the Colonial Income Tax Office becomes the "Overseas Territory Income Tax Office". The Colonial Products Laboratory now becomes the "Tropical Products Institute". A Bill which is before us and which may be taken next week seeks to alter the name of the Imperial Institute to the Commonwealth Institute.

In view of all these tendencies, the change in the climate of opinion and the completely different views now entertained throughout the world, it is very necessary that we should amend the name of the Colonial Development Corporation and call it the Commonwealth Development Corporation.

8.0 p.m.

This is not the thin edge of the wedge; the alteration has not been designed for the purpose of the wider function which we hope at some time or other the Colonial Development Corporation may exercise. In view of the changed climate of opinion, it is important that the name of the Corporation should be restyled as we suggest. After all, the Colonies are members of the Commonwealth. They might not be in full membership, but they are in membership. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the change proposed in these Amendments.

Mr. Nigel Fisher: I do not agree with a single word said by the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones). As the first Amendment to this Bill has now been rejected by the Committee, I hope this and other similar Amendments will not be pressed, because they are totally inconsistent with the main objects of the Bill, and with Clause 1 in particular.
If the purpose of the Bill, as confirmed by our discussion on and rejection of the last Amendment, is that the Colonial Development Corporation should continue to help the Colonial Territories but should not continue to help the independent Commonwealth territories, then in my view there can be no possible point in changing the name of the Corporation from the Colonial Development Corporation to that of Commonwealth Development Corporation. It would be a complete misnomer, and a confusing and

misleading misnomer as well. If desired, it would be possible to rename the Corporation, "The Overseas Development Corporation", or something of that sort. I should be against that, but it would not be inaccurate nor actually misleading; but to call it the Commonwealth Development Corporation in the circumstances of the rejection of the last Amendment would make no sense at all.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Colonial Secretary reject the suggestion in his Second Reading speech, and I hope the Committee will reject it on this occasion. In the debate on Second Reading, I gave my reasons for being against this change. I will not give them again now, because that would be a waste of the time of the Committee. But I feel very strongly that if we here seem to give the impression that we are ashamed of the word "colonial" and, by inference, of our colonial record, we simply give ammunition to those in other countries, notably in Russia—but also sometimes in America—whose whole propaganda is directed towards the denigration and abuse of the great work we have done, and for which, I believe, we deserve credit, in the discharge of our responsibilities as an Imperial Power. I believe no empire the world has known has been more enlightened in its policy towards those whom it has governed or more ready and anxious to hand over the reins of government as fully and quickly as possible to the people concerned. I am very proud of what we have done and of what we are doing, and I see no reason whatever to change the name of the Corporation.

Mrs. White: I am very sorry the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) has taken that line. He has introduced a note which I think is inappropriate. If we followed his argument we would be discussing the Imperial Resources Development Bill; but there has been a change in the nomenclature.
The Bill envisages circumstances in which it would be very much more appropriate to have the title "Commonwealth Development Corporation" than "Colonial Development Corporation". For example, in subsection (3) the hon. Member will see that apparently the policy of the Government is that while they debar investment—which may mean that the subsection will become a dead


letter, as I think the Corporation itself believes—the Corporation, if it wishes, may undertake certain functions as managerial agents, or in an advisory capacity, riot merely in a territory which has been a Colony, but in a Commonwealth territory. It is not even confined to a territory which has recently been a Colonial Territory.
In subsection (2), the Corporation can continue and expand particular enterprises, and that expansion may be over a long period of years. It would be continuing in a territory which was no longer a Colony. Therefore, it seems to us that, if this provision is made, the whole purpose of the Bill is to extend the operations of the Corporation in parts of the Commonwealth which are not covered by the word "colonial". Therefore, what is inappropriate in suggesting that now we should resort to the wider nomenclature? As my right hon. Friend properly said, the Colonies are in fact part of the Commonwealth, so it would not be inappropriate for such countries as are Colonies and it would be very much more appropriate for countries which are no longer Colonies, or, if my reading of subsection (3) is correct, never have been Colonies.
I would strengthen the argument by saying that if one looks at the last Annual Report and reads paragraph 16, on page 9, one sees it is perfectly clear that in referring to the suggestion that C.D.C. might continue to offer the services of its experienced staff and personnel to emerging parts of the Commonwealth, it is strongly of the opinion that it would be an embarrassment if the name "colonial" remained. There is no doubt whatever that that is the opinion of the Corporation and it is put down in the Annual Report. Using the telegraphese of Lord Reith:
'Colonial' would have to come out of C.D.C. title".
Are we to be told today that Lord Reith has changed his mind? This is a Report for which he is responsible, and he has put this in quite categorically. This is just one more instance in which clearly the Colonial Development Corporation has an idea of how it can best fulfil its functions, but it
is overruled by Her Majesty's Government. I suggest that is not the best way of encouraging the Corporation in its work. I see nothing whatever inconsistent with the purpose of

the Bill, which is an extension of the functions of the Corporation and, in one particular respect, essentially even of the area, in suggesting that the time has come for a change of title.
The hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir R. Robinson) made a very eloquent speech on this point during the Second Reading debate. He is clearly of the same opinion as we on this side. He urged most strongly in favour of it, and was refreshed in his opinion by his recent visit to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Conference in New Delhi. He was very clearly of the opinion that the change would be in line with the wishes of our partners in the Commonwealth.
This does not mean, as the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations seems to infer, that by this change we want it to be one of the functions of the Commonwealth Development Corporation—I have made a slip, but, I think, a most natural slip, which shows how desirable and natural the change would be—to be one of the functions of the Colonial Development Corporation, as it still is, to rush off and invest its meagre resources in Canada, Australia and New Zealand.
That is a very large red herring drawn across the trail. Anything that the Corporation does has to be done with the general sanction of the Secretary of State. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman, as I should like to ask the hon. Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher), this question. If it is so inappropriate, may we know why the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations is here at all participating as an official speaker in this debate? It is perfectly clear from the Second Reading debate and from this one that he is regarded as one of the responsible Ministers.
Surely, the greater should include the lesser—and I am not now referring to the hon. Gentleman but to the term "Commonwealth" as including the term "Colonies". It seems quite inappropriate for the Government, for reasons best known to themselves, to resist the normal process of change, and to show the wrong kind of conservatism, if I may say so, on such a point as this. They are going against the general trend of opinion in the territories concerned.
As was said on Second Reading, many of us would like to feel that the Development


Corporation could, in the future, at least become a Commonwealth Corporation, not in the sense that it should invest in Canada, Australia or New Zealand, but that it should itself participate and invest in some of those other territories, and the change in name would be a preliminary step to that kind of development. Many of us are at one in wishing to see some sort of development in that direction, as again was shown during the Second Reading debate.
I think, therefore, there is every reason why this proposal should be accepted. After all, we have the word "overseas" in the Bill. That indicates that it is not merely colonial or Commonwealth but that the Government think we should go into other territories outside the Commonwealth. "Commonwealth" is a much better word than "Overseas". It has more overtones and undertones, which most of us think are of value. Instead, we are given this rather negative word, "overseas"—

The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies (Mr. John Profumo): Of course, what we are doing is to use the same words as the Labour Government used when they produced the 1948 Bill.

Mrs. White: Then the Government might, perhaps, improve on it.

Mr. Callaghan: And that Act is ten years old.

Mrs. White: What is now being resisted by the Government is something that we consider to be a forward step, and I think that the reasons I have given, and those put forward so very cogently by my right hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones), demonstrate that if the Government resist this suggestion they are adopting a very negative attitude.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Harrison: I regret that I cannot follow any of the previous speakers. They have tried to be logical, and this is not a logical, but an emotional matter. There is no strict reason for saying why something should be called a Colonial Development Corporation, or a British Development Corporation, or a Commonwealth Development Corporation. I am second to none in my admiration of the work done throughout the Empire, or Commonwealth, by people from this

country, and of the job they have done in settling, developing and bringing on various nations to self-government, but the term "colonial", or any reference to it, does, in many areas, make people's hackles rise.
That applies even to a country that has been self-governing for as long as Australia has. Someone said to me the other day, "I have just come back from Australia. They are a very funny crowd out there. I said that they were descended from a set of convicts and they just laughed, but when I turned to another chap and said 'You are a colonial, aren't you?' I was flat on my back." That is an absolutely true indication of the feeling of people towards this word "colonial".
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations showed great statesmanship once before in this House, when a Bill came before the House as the Empire Settlement Bill and left it as the Commonwealth Settlement Bill. For the very same reason, I think that it would be an equal act of statesmanship were he very carefully to consider, and not just consider, but do something about, altering the words used in this Measure.
I do not agree that we seek to do this just because we object to anti-colonial criticism in the United Nations or anything like that. It is not that. The point is that this is something that really does get people's backs up, and there is no real reason for going out of our way to get people's backs up in the Commonwealth or anywhere else.
I think that subsection (3) is just an airy-fairy dream if the thought is that any of the emergent territories will come back to the Colonial Development Corporation in order to get it to perform advisory functions, or act as managing agents, but there is a very real desire that this organisation should be used, and it could be of the greatest use throughout the Commonwealth. Nevertheless, we have to have some alteration in the name, not, as I say, for logical reasons, but purely and simply because this is an extremely emotional issue, particularly in the newly emergent territories.

Mr. Profumo: I do not like to disappoint hon. Members, and especially my


hon. Friends, but I must tell the Committee that I cannot accept this Amendment, or those that we are considering with it, and I will do my best to give the Committee my reasons.
It seems to me that there can really be only two reasons for hon. Members wanting to change the name of the Corporation. Of the first, I detected a hint in hon. Members' speeches in our exhaustive discussion earlier; namely, that we should enlarge the scope of the Corporation. The hon. Lady the Member for Flint, East (Mrs. White) quoted from page 9 of the last Annual Report of the Colonial Development Corporation, and said that even Lord Reith would like to change the word "colonial" for something else.
I do not wish to appear to be in controversy with Lord Reith but he was making that comment against the background in which he was asking that the Corporation should be permitted to invest in emergent and emerging territories. He was saying, consequentially, that if that were allowed it would be necessary for the word "colonial" to be removed from the title of the Colonial Development Corporation. Lord Reith was not saying in any way that he disliked the term "colonial"; he made the remark against the background of that part of the Report to which I referred.

Mrs. White: Lord Reith goes on to refer to the
help of the experienced C.D.C. personnel.
That is surely what is covered in subsection (3); it is the whole point of the subsection that experienced C.D.C. personnel should be allowed to operate not merely in Ghana and Malaya but in other parts of the Commonwealth. I have very good reason for saying that Lord Reith meant the last phrase of that paragraph to refer to both situations.

Mr. Profumo: I must disagree with the hon. Lady. It is perfectly clear to anyone who reads paragraph 16. I only want to put it in its right perspective, because it would be a mistake if we had on record that the hon. Lady was right when, in one of her arguments, she said that even Lord Reith would like this change to be made.

Mrs. White: Has the hon. Member had an assurance from Lord Reith or the

C.D.C. that in the circumstances envisaged by the Bill they are agreeable that the name should not be altered? Have they discussed this subsection with him and have they given him a positive assurance on the point?

Mr. Profumo: I certainly cannot give that assurance. Let us keep the argument fair. I have not a positive assurance from Lord Reith about this. I know that in time past he expressed the view that it might be considered that we should change the name, but I can assure hon. Members that he has not lately made representations about it.
The only point I am seeking to make now is that when the hon. Lady quotes the paragraph of that official Report by Lord Reith, I must put it in proper perspective and point out that Lord Reith was making the comment against the background of a perfectly proper suggestion, but one which the Committee has already turned down, by voting, on an earlier Amendment. This reason for wanting to change the name is therefore not valid.
The Government have declared that their aim is not to turn the Colonial Development Corporation into a major instrument of Commonwealth development but to retain it primarily as an instrument of Colonial development. This is made perfectly clear in the White Paper which the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) does not like. I am sorry that he does not like it, but the limitations on the Colonial Development Corporation are made perfectly clear in paragraphs 31 and 33 of the White Paper. My right hon. Friend made clear on Second Reading that what this Bill seeks to do is to carry out the policy which is laid down in the White Paper.
The idea of changing the name of the Colonial Development Corporation to the Commonwealth Development Corporation is not new. The Government have given this matter very careful consideration, but we are satisfied that the present title most appropriately describes the primary function of the Corporation—namely, to assist Colonial Territories in the development of their economy. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Surbiton (Mr. Fisher) that any alteration in the title would be misleading.
I was sorry to hear the right hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Creech Jones) use the phrase "retreat from the use of the word colonial". He talked about the change in the name of the Crown Agents and other organisations, and I should like to assure him that in all those cases there were reasons for making the change. He knows only too well that the Crown Agents are not solely Crown Agents for the Colonies; they act in the Commonwealth and even in foreign territories. It is not a very valid argument to say that we are retreating down the line from the use of the word "colonial". There were reasons for changing the titles which he mentioned.

Mr. Callaghan: There are reasons here.

Mr. Creech Jones: I used the word "retreat" quite deliberately. In any case, why has the Colonial Office itself withdrawn from the use of the term? No longer is it the Colonial Service; it is now the Overseas Service. I thought it was common knowledge that the Colonies were part of the Commonwealth and had long been accepted as part of the Commonwealth. I do not understand why we should cling to so narrow a definition which has incurred a great deal of very strong resentment in all parts of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Profumo: I am coming to the part of my remarks where I shall have to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman; I do not believe this is resented all over the Commonwealth. I fully accept that he is entitled to his views but I must state mine on behalf of the Government. He made a perfectly valid point that the Colonies are part of the Commonwealth. On the other hand, the Bill seeks to help the Colonies—only that part of the Commonwealth which is called the Colonies.

Mr. Callaghan: That is not accurate.

Mr. Profumo: It seeks primarily to help the Colonies; that is in the White Paper. Its primary function is to seek to help the Colonies. I must also remind the right hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend is still called the Colonial Secretary; he is not called the Overseas Secretary.

Mr. Callaghan: What about the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations?

Mr. Profumo: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State is, of course, interested in the Bill because of emergent territories. I think it is clear that it would be confusing if we were to call this the Commonwealth Development Corporation when its primary function is to help the Colonies.
I want to turn to what was said by the right hon. Member for Wakefield and also by my hon. Friend the Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison). I do not accept that the word "colonial" will deter those who want to seek assistance from the C.D.C. I do not think there is any need for us to be ashamed of the word "colonial" in this respect and I can see absolutely no evidence to the effect that Colonial Territories have found it embarrassing in any way to go to the C.D.C. for help.
Let me give two or three examples. Malaya benefited to the extent of nearly £12 million right up to the time of independence. Malaya was longing for independence. The C.D.C. is even now negotiating many schemes in Nigeria. The Committee may like to know that British Guiana is most anxious to obtain further assistance from the C.D.C. I do not think that even Dr. Jagan's best friend could claim that he is a wild protagonist of Colonialism, but that has in no way prevented that Territory and indeed other territories, from seeking help from the Corporation, which we know, quite rightly, as the Colonial Development Corporation.
On the question whether it might be difficult, under the name "colonial", to borrow from outside sources, and the problem of these emergent territories which, according to an hon. Member, would find it awkward after they had emerged to seek help from the Colonial Development Corporation, one ought to remember that it is always open to the C.D.C. if it wishes to conduct its operations in a particular territory or country through a subsidiary company under whatever name is considered appropriate. We know that the Corporation is alive to this. [Interruption.] I did not say that it would have to do so; I said that it was open to the C.D.C. to do so if it wished.
8.30 p.m.
I have made a perfectly logical argument. First of all, this word properly describes the Bill that we are discussing. Secondly, there are no valid reasons why this should not continue to be called a Colonial Corporation. Thirdly, if at any moment it looked like becoming embarrassing to any territory to continue to use the word "colonial", there is a way out. We have not changed the name of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act; yet, as every hon. Member knows, there is no reticence on the part of the Colonial Territories in asking for more help under that Act. This demolishes the argument that the use of the word "colonial" acts as a deterrent.

Mrs. White: Are we to extend the scope of the Colonial Development and Welfare Act to the countries that we have been discussing?

Mr. Profumo: No. I am not sure that the hon. Lady has been listening very well. Perhaps she would do me the courtesy of following the argument. My argument is that there is no evidence anywhere that the use of the word "colonial" in this respect prevents the Corporation from doing its job, any more than it discourages people from asking for development and welfare aid.
I am not ashamed of the word "colonial". I accept that it has become controversial. I accept that there are places all over the world—ill-wishers to the British Commonwealth—people who do dirty work, who try to do the British Commonwealth down and who have done their very best to use every opportunity to draw attention to the idea that colonialism is out of date and that it stands for bad things.
Do not let us always link the word "colonial" with controversy. Let us use the word in this case as meaning

something which can be admired, even by those who hate Britain—something which is bringing succour and assistance to the Colonial Territories. If we do that we shall be doing a very good service. I can see no reason for accepting this Amendment, and I have done my best to explain to the Committee why Her Majesty's Government feel they must reject it.

Mr. Callaghan: The vigour—I almost said the heat—with which the Under-Secretary of State has defended this change of name is to me an indication that he feels that he has a very bad case. He did not produce any argument. If I may use the old phrase, there was much more heat than light in what he said.
We had the fresh breezes from Australia blowing across the Government Front Bench, thank goodness. We had the Commonwealth coming to the aid of the Government. The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. B. Harrison) always makes me feel that there is some hope for the Government yet, so long as he can bring himself to sit on the Government side of the Committee. Even he disagreed with his hon. Friend. He told us of the views which he heard during, his journeys. We have all heard the same views. The Under-Secretary has not begun to convince anybody. His hon. Friends are not here to listen to him. If they were, and if there were a free vote, his arguments would be rejected.
I ask my hon. Friends to vote in favour of the Amendment and against the Government to mark what we believe is their woodenness, their obtuseness, their obstinacy and their pigheadedness.

Question put, That "Colonial" stand part of the Clause:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 145, Noes 120.

Division No. 37.)
AYES
[8.35 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Barlow, Sir John
Channon, Sir Henry


Aitken, W. T.
Barter, John
Chichester-Clark, R.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)


Alport, C. J. M.
Bingham, R. M.
Conant, Maj. Sir Roger


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Bishop, F. P.
Cooke, Robert


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Bossom, Sir Alfred
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.


Anstruther-Cray, Major Sir William
Boyle, Sir Edward
Corfield, Capt. F. V.


Arbuthnot, John
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)


Armstrong, C. W.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Cunningham, Knox


Atkins, H. E.
Bryan, P.
Currie, G. B. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A. (Saffron Walden)
Davidson, Viscountess


Barber, Anthony
Campbell, Sir David
Deedes, W. F.




Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh.W.)
Pitman, I. J.


Drayson, G. B.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Pitt, Miss E. M.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Profumo, J. D.


Duncan, Sir James
Joseph, Sir Keith
Ramsden, J. E.


Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Rawlinson, Peter


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kaberry, D.
Redmayne, M.


Errington, Sir Eric
Kershaw, J. A.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Fisher, Nigel
Leavey, J. A.
Roper, Sir Harold


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Sharples, R. C.


Freeth, Denzil
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Shepherd, William


Gammans, Lady
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Speir, R. M.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Longden, Gilbert
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir AIan
McKibbin, AIan
Studholme, Sir Henry


Goodhart, Philip
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Gower, H. R.
Macmillan, Maurice (Hallfax)
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Graham, Sir Fergus
Maddan, Martin
Temple, John M.


Grant, W. (Woodside)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Green, A.
Marshall, Douglas
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mathew, R.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Mawby, R. L.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr, S. L. C.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Hall, John (Wycombe)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Vane, W. M. F.


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere (Macclesf'd)
Neave, Airey
Wall, Major Patrick


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)


Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Oakshott, H. D.
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Hirst, Geoffrey
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Page, R. G.
Woollam, John Victor


Hornby, R. P.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)



Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Partridge, E.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hughes Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Peel, W. J.
Mr. Edward Wakefield and


Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Mr. Gibson-Watt.


Hulbert, Sir Norman
Pike, Mitt Mervyn





NOES


Alnsley, J. W.
Holman, P.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Holmes, Horace
Parker, J.


Awbery, S. S.
Holt, A. F.
Peart, T. F.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Houghton, Douglas
Pentland, N.


Beswick, Frank
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Popplewell, E.


Blackburn, F.
Hoy, J. H.
Prentice, R. E.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hubbard, T. F.
Price, J. T. (Westnoughton)


Blyton, W. R.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Boardman, H.
Hunter, A. E.
Probert, A. R.


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Randall, H. E.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Rhodes, H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Ross, William


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Royle, C.


Callaghan, L. J.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Carmichael, J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Clunie, J.
Kenyon, C.
Steele, T.


Coldrick, W.
Lawton, G. M.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Lipton, Marous
Stones, W. (Consett)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Logan, D. C.
Sylvester, G. O.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
MacColl, J. E.
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Deer, G.
McGhee, H. G.
Usborne, H. C.


Delargy, H. J.
McGovern, J.
Viant, S. P.


Diamond, John
McInnes, J.
Wade, D. W.


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Wa kins, T. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McLeavy, Frank
Weitzman, D.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Simon
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Fernyhough, E.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Wheeldon, W. E.


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mason, Roy
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Mellish, R. J.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Gibson, C. W.
Mikardo, Ian
Wilkins, W. A.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mitchison, G. R.
Willey, Frederick


Grey, C. F.
Moody, A. S.
Williams, David (Neath)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Grimond, J.
Mort, D. L.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Woof, R. E.


Hannan, W.
Oram, A. E.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Oswald, T.



Hayman, F. H.
Padley, W. E.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Herbison, Miss M.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Mr. Pearson and Mr. Simmons.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I think that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if the Amendments in page 1, lines 17 and 22, are discussed together.

Mr. J. Johnson: I beg to move, in page 1, line 17, to leave out from "territory" to the end of line 21.
We have had two somewhat sensational votes. We have got the score down to 29 and 25, I think. If we stay long enough, we shall beat this Government, it seems. During the last debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) used some euphemistic and some opprobrious terms such as "blockhead" and "wooden-head". There are other Anglo-Saxon terms, but I shall not need to talk about those.
The first Amendment means merely that if say, in Ghana or Malaya, there is a particular scheme going on under the C.D.C., then the Government will allow the C.D.C. to spend extra money to finish it off. The second one means, very shortly, that the Government will allow the C.D.C. to widen its scope and enlarge its operations on a particular scheme if the Secretary of State thinks it advisable.
8.45 p.m.
When I looked at the Clause, I said to myself, why stop half-way? What is the matter with these people who are now advising and in charge of the Colonial Development Corporation? Why not go the whole way and allow them to stay in the territories and do other jobs? This is the dilemma of the Conservative Party. I will not call the hon. Gentlemen on the Front Bench opposite the names mentioned a few moments ago, but I will say this very kindly to them: they are schizophrenic. This is what is the matter with the Conservatives when they endeavour to work a public corporation of this kind. I will not say that they are unfit to govern. They are unfitted to administer instruments of this kind, governing what has been termed "the Empire". That is the difficulty with hon. Gentlemen on the benches opposite.
In the debates last week and today, the only honest man on the benches opposite who has spoken his mind has been the hon. Member for Liverpool,

Kirkdale (Mr. N. Pannell). He is, at least, an honest Tory and has the "guts" to say what he thinks about the financial set-up and this particular operation. I say, good luck to him. I wish other hon. Gentlemen opposite would be as forthcoming as he has been.
The two Under-Secretaries, and, of course, the Secretary of State for the Colonies, have had a baby left them by the Labour Government. Whether one talks about bottles of milk or, indeed, gin—anything one cares to mention—they do not like to feed it at all, whatever is the element inside the bottle. They will be glad, in my view—I say this seriously—to shelve their obligations. Wherever there is an emerging Colony, they then say, "Thank you very much. We are quite happy to let them stand on their own feet." They are not on their own feet, but on their knees and are just getting up off their knees and beginning to become a modern State.
We get the glib answer time and time again on these Amendments that these States, like Malaya and Ghana, are politically independent. Of course, they are in the sense that they have, with us, signed their names to a new constitution. But are they economically dependent? This is a very old one. A country can be politically independent but still be an economic Colony in the financial sense and in the sense of developing its internal economics.
Lord Chandos, who used to speak at the Dispatch Box in debates like this, was perfectly correct when he said that we need to have a firm economic basis before we can call a place independent—independent with a capital "I". Of course, they are not independent at all. They need all the help that they can get and even more than they have had in the past. Yet here we are, in Clauses like this, cutting off what they have been having. All that is said is, "You can go on with the schemes that you have. You can continue them, and perhaps spend another £½ million if you are lucky. You can go out of this town and set up another ancillary activity in a town twenty miles away." That is all this means, nothing more nor less. But when these schemes are finished, Ghana is finished.
The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations often thinks that he is talking at a Conservative Party meeting and not in the House of Commons. He was talking about the objections of these States to the C.D.C. It is incorrect to say there are objections, and never yet today has he quoted either Mr. Kwame Nkrumah or any other statesmen—Tenku Abdul Rahman, or anyone in Malaya—who has said that he does not want continuing help by the Government. Therefore, I say that it is economic, political and ideological nonsense to talk in that way. I beg the Minister to forget some of these things that he has been saying. Here are these young peoples, these so-called—I do not like the word and they do not like it either—"backward" peoples, these dependent peoples, who need all the help they can get and here we are, cutting them off in this way.
One often speaks in these debates about paving Amendments at the beginning. This one is, perhaps, the opposite. It is in some ways a flooring Amendment and, in view of the two goes that we have already had, I hope that this one may even floor the Government if we take them into the Lobby on this issue.

Mr. Alport: As I understand the purpose of the two Amendments, they amount to an attempt by the Opposition to procure through them precisely the same result as hon. Members opposite were attempting to procure through the Amendment which we discussed at some length earlier. Having failed to get in at the front door, they decide to go round to the back and see whether they can get in there. All the arguments which I deployed, and which were deployed on this side of the Committee, against the earlier proposal are equally relevant to the Amendment.
The hon. Member for Rugby (Mr. J. Johnson) made one point that interested me. He said that the Government had shown themselves incapable of administering a State corporation. What is fascinating about that is that the £8 million that the Colonial Development Corporation is sc anxious to write off results from the losses which were incurred during a period when that Corporation was, if not

being administered directly by the previous Government, at least operating under its auspices. Therefore, if there is any question of incapability of administering a State corporation, on the whole the evidence goes against the hon. Member and the party to which he belongs.

Mr. J. Johnson: I did not say "incapable". Had the hon. Gentleman been listening, he would have heard me say that the Government were unfitted—not unfit, but unfitted—to administer the affairs of a public corporation for these young peoples. I did not use the word "incapable" and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw it.

Mr. Alport: I beg the hon. Member's pardon. In the point I am making, there is not the slightest difference whether the hon. Member used the word "incapable" or "unfitted".
The hon. Member has accused the party on this side of the Committee of being concerned with ideological matters. The truth is that if we had been concerned supremely with our own particular point of view, we should not be giving, as we are through the Bill, increased opportunities—they may not be as much as the hon. Member would like, but they are increased opportunities—for the Colonial Development Corporation to play its part in accordance with certain definite limitations in a wider sphere. Indeed, had we followed the ideological line to which the hon. Member has referred, we should not at present be providing the Colonial Development Corporation, as we are under the Bill, with an additional £50 million. Therefore, the allegations made by the hon. Member are not substantiated.
I do not wish to repeat the many arguments that were advanced during the earlier debate. I hope, however, that the arguments which have already been advanced will be remembered by the Committee, for they are the reason why the Government cannot, on this occasion, support or accept the hon. Member's Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(BORROWING BY AND ADVANCES TO COLONIAL DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Profumo: I do not wish to detain the Committee unduly, but I should like to say a word about Treasury guarantees. The provision for this has existed in the Overseas Resources Development Acts since their inception, but the question of a Treasury guarantee for borrowing by the Colonial Development Corporation from a source other than the Exchequer would, quite naturally, have to be considered in the light of all the relevant circumstances at the time.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, who mentioned this matter on Second Reading, has asked me to make it quite clear that it is not contemplated that a Treasury guarantee should become a normal accompaniment of loans which the C.D.C. may secure from sources other than the Exchequer. The intention is that the C.D.C. should raise money on its own credit, and I assure the Committee that that is certainly the view of the C.D.C. itself. I thought it better to make that plain now for the convenience of the Committee rather than at a later stage.

Mr. Creech Jones: Can the Under-Secretary give some assurance that a further Bill will be forthcoming, dealing in a more ample way with some of the financial problems which the C.D.C. is facing and with some of the difficulties which I am certain are at present being discussed between the Corporation and the Colonial Office?
We are a little disappointed with the limitations of the Bill and we feel that the Corporation is obliged to work under the greatest difficulties. We hope that these difficulties will be removed at the earliest possible moment. Can the hon. Gentleman assure us that before long these negotiations will come to an end and that appropriate legislation will be forthcoming?

Mr. Profumo: I am afraid that I am not in a position to give a categorical

undertaking that there will be legislation. The right hon. Gentleman is perfectly correct in saying that some of these complex matters are now being studied by my right hon. Friend and the C.D.C. When these studies have come to an end, I have no doubt that we shall be able to make some form of announcement, but it would be wrong and misleading to the Committee if I tried to indicate at this stage that there would be any future legislation, which I think the right hon. Gentleman has requested. I hope that within the course of the not too distant future Her Majesty's Government will be able to make some announcement about the results of these negotiations.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. Profumo: Now that we have come to the final stages of the Bill, I want to thank hon. and right hon. Members on both sides of the House for their comments and indeed for their patience. Even if some hon. Members feel that the Bill does not go far enough in certain respects I think that we can all join in welcoming it as a Measure which provides additional scope to the C.D.C. I do not wish to detain the House, but I felt that it would be appropriate for me to wish the Bill well and to speed it on its voyage to another place, and to thank hon. and right hon. Members for the way in which they have dealt with it up to now.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — ENTERTAINMENTS DUTY BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee; reported, without Amendment; read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — IMPORT DUTIES BILL

Order for Third Reading read.

9.0 p.m.

The President of the Board of Trade (Sir David Eccles): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As I explained during the Second Reading debate, the chief purpose of the Bill is to clear away the great jungle of legislation relating to our protective tariff, and to replace it by a single comprehensive Measure. We were glad to find the House agreed that this is a job which badly needed doing: a new and common statutory foundation for our tariff will remove much of the present uncertainty and provide a stable legal background to tariff policy.
The Bill has two other important purposes. The first is to give authority to re-cast the present tariff in the Brussels Nomenclature form. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and I pronounce the ugly word "nomenclature" in different ways. To please him, I have now adopted his pronunciation. I consulted the Oxford Dictionary in the Library and found that my pronunciation was given first, but, believing that "manners" are something which he and I share from our school days, I have adopted his pronunciation.
The second purpose is to lay down permanent arrangements for dealing with tariff applications. The House has clearly shown that it agrees with our objectives and that the Bill, as amended, has been broadly acceptable.
On a matter of such importance to British industry, hon. Members have asked many questions, and the Minister of State and I have done our best to answer them, and we shall do our best to answer any more questions which are put to us today.
The only sensation that we had during our debates was a demand from the Liberal Party that we should reduce by half all our import duties, which would have injured a wide range of our industry and agriculture, now protected, for purely doctrinaire reasons. But this is a machinery Bill. It has nothing to do with changing rates of duty. Therefore, I suppose a subject of that kind is out of order on Third Reading.
When we brought the Bill before the House, we proposed an Import Duties Board for dealing with tariff applications. Such a Board carried out our old understanding with industry. However, after hearing the constructive views expressed on both sides of the House, we thought again.
The Bill as it now stands requires the Board of Trade itself to deal with applications for changes in the tariff and for relief from duty; functions which the Board have exercised since 1939. It is reassuring to us that so many hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their confidence in the way in which Government Departments—the Board of Trade and the Customs in particular—have carried out those responsibilities over the last nineteen years.
Broadly speaking, we intend, if the House gives us the Bill, to follow and improve our existing procedure. Perhaps I might rehearse briefly how that works. The Board of Trade receives an application for a change in duty, it may be for an increase or a reduction. After a preliminary sifting, we decide whether a detailed investigation should take place. In this process we weed out the "non-starters." Many tentative inquiries are dropped by the applicants themselves when we explain all the implications of a change in duty.
Every application for which there appears to be a case for examination is then advertised in the Board of Trade Journal which has a very wide circulation. A notice for publication is also sent to the trade papers concerned and to the national Press. Also we inform the trade associations who are interested. There never has been any suggestion that this publicity is not adequate to inform all those directly concerned that a case for a change is about to be prepared.
The Board of Trade proceeds to gather evidence for and against the proposed change. We study all the submissions made to us and, in turn, make a great many inquiries ourselves. The usual complaint about this procedure has been that because it was so thorough it took too long. When all the evidence has been sifted and the national and international implications of a change in duty have been considered, the Board of Trade either turns down the application or makes a positive recommendation to


the Treasury. The Treasury will be aware that a recommendation is coming before it is made, and will make an order giving effect to the recommendation which is then laid before this House.
If in future the Board decides not to make a recommendation, we shall improve our present procedure. We shall, wherever possible, give the applicant the reasons in writing for the refusal, leaving it to him to publish them if he so desires. As I said on earlier occasions, we shall be constantly on the watch to make such improvements in this procedure as are practicable. I am determined to avoid delays while continuing to do the thorough job which is necessary. It is essential that this country, which has such a large interest in international trade, should set a good example in making changes in tariffs only after a really thorough examination. In the course of that examination, the Board of Trade is always ready to see applicants and others concerned, and we shall encourage them to give their evidence orally if they so desire.
I can give the House a little more information about the way the Departments would carry out responsibilities placed upon them by the Bill. Clause 4 requires the Board of Trade to report annually to the House on the exercise of the powers relating to import duties. These reports would describe the action the Government have or have not taken on tariff or drawback applications, and how powers to issue duty-free directions have been used. The first report would cover the financial year 1959–60, because that is the first full year of experience of the new tariff. The House will know that it cannot come into force until 1st January next year.
I cannot predict what volume of tariff applications we are likely to receive in the years to come. We publicly advertised 15 such applications in 1957. The corresponding figure in previous years was rather less, and I have no reason to expect any marked increase in that number in the future. On the other hand, the Board of Trade receive about 17,000 applications a year for duty-free licences under the various provisions which are reproduced in the Fourth Schedule. That is an administrative job of considerable extent.
In our debates, interest was shown in the Consultative Committee on the Duty-Free Entry of Machinery. The function of that Committee is to keep under review the broad policy and general rules of procedure followed by the Board of Trade in administering these provisions. The Committee also considers problems that arise from time to time and represents to us the views of industry. I am grateful to the Committee for the help it provides. The House may be interested to know that, on a rough computation, about two-thirds of the applications received are licensed.
The Board of Trade deals with drawback applications in much the same way as with tariff applications. Those which
deserve serious consideration are advertised and the Board invites representations from all interested parties. There is, again, every facility for consultation and discussion, and I am always open to representations from industry if it is not satisfied with the opportunities that are given. We examine these drawback applications against the criteria which are now embodied in Clause 9, that is, mainly, whether the drawback will promote exports and is in the national interest.
The smooth and rapid progress which
the Bill has had through the House is an indication that the preparatory work has been well done. This work has been going on for several years and it is remarkable that we should have been able to get, by consultation with hundreds of trade associations, such a consensus of agreement to what is a very substantial piece of tidying up. The Bill will also give us a modern and single tariff structure which will be of great value to traders and to my Department in its work in the field of commercial policy. Therefore I commend the Measure to the House with the confidence that, though modest, it will be of benefit to our industry and to our commerce.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: We can all wish well to this not very controversial Bill. We all agree that it will greatly lighten the labours of traders and administrators dealing with import duties. We have had only one serious disagreement in the discussion, and that


was over the manner in which applications should be handled and the obligation that there should be on the Board of Trade to consult those affected.
Most of us know that the best way of doing the job of examining these applications in modern conditions is that the Board of Trade should do it itself. The President of the Board of Trade handsomely accepted, not merely my pronunciation of the word "nomenclature," but also the view of the House in totally abandoning his original idea of an outside Import Duties Board. That certainly shortened our discussion, and I believe it will also shorten the time taken to handle these applications.
The right hon. Gentleman was rather less reasonable in refusing to accept our suggestion that there should be a statutory obligation in the Bill that the President of the Board of Trade should advertise his intentions of making the Order beforehand, so as to give people a chance to put their case. I do not know why he was so unwilling to do that because both on Report and today he has given a pretty thorough undertaking. On Report, he gave the assurance:
We shall not make a change of duty without having gone through the processes of advertisement and of collecting the views for and against."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th January, 1958; Vol. 581, c. 436.]
From what he said amplifying that today, I gather that what the right hon. Gentleman proposes to advertise in these circumstances is that there has been an application to the Board of Trade. Presumably, if there had been no application there would not be any advertisement. I think that the right hon. Gentleman went a good long way to meet our point of view. At any rate, he has given us a much more firm assurance on the record than anything we had on Second Reading or in Committee.
The Bill which provides both for raising and lowering tariffs. Therefore, I presume, it will no more satisfy the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Holt) at this stage than it did earlier. He pledged the Liberal Party, in a most notable speech, to the unilateral reduction, if not indeed abolition, of all import duties. I suggested that, owing to the violent disagreement he has with the benches opposite, perhaps a Conservative

candidate might appear in Bolton, West at the next General Election. I do not know if there was any connection between that discussion and the subsequent appearance of a Liberal candidate at Rochdale. Perhaps there might be a connection between the two. I understand that the hon. Member for Bolton, West has already been to Rochdale, no doubt explaining his objections to the Bill and urging the people there of the benefits of having duty-free cotton imports, not merely from the Commonwealth, but from foreign countries also.
That might explain the remarkable fact that the Liberal candidate is not even a member of the Liberal Party. I can well believe that he would not wish to be wholly associated with the views of the hon. Member for Bolton, West if they remain today what they were in the early stages of the Bill. We on this side of the House do not share those extreme views, whether or not they are shared by the Liberal candidate at Rochdale, or, indeed, by the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Wade).
We think that the Bill as it stands offers, on the whole, a reasonable procedure for deciding import duty rates on the imports of each case as it comes up. Nevertheless, we shall look forward with interest to seeing the controversy between the hon. Member for Bolton. West and hon. Members opposite fought out, no doubt at the next General Election, in Bolton, in Rochdale and, perhaps, in Huddersfield also.

9.17 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Hirst: At least I have in common with the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) the fact that I do not share the views of the Liberal Party and its rather sweeping ideas which would not be very popular in my constituency and would leave plenty of room for under-employment if carried into practice.
I want to thank my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade for introducing the Bill and for the magnanimous way in which he has treated the House to his views held on abolishing the Import Duties Board. I want to mention two items. One is in regard to import-duty-free machinery which I think is working better. I think there is a realisation in the Board of Trade, which I did not always find, of the


importance of urging a decision as quickly as possible, but I think I shall not be alone in feeling that the machinery existing at the moment is not properly giving the full confidence to industry which might be given, and I think could be given, if something were added to the Consultative Committee in the form of assessors to cover the technical aspects of the problem.
The fact is that whatever consultative machinery my right hon. Friend has, it can, as he said, only be on general policy. When it comes to technicalities, applicants are to a very great extent in the hands of the firms which at present are protected and, therefore, inevitably have a special interest in advancing their claims that certain machines will not do a particular job. I do not find their arguments always necessarily as solid as they themselves think.
The only other question I want to ask is a much easier one, and I hope that when this debate is wound up I may at last have the answer. I asked on Second Reading that there shall be confirmation—which industry will be interested to have—that there will be adequate consultation before changes are made in the import duties system.
This is particularly important, because nobody should fool himself by denying that the Bill is being introduced in a period in which there are possibilities of vast changes in tariff policies throughout a great part of Europe. That must be in people's minds. Indeed, the Bill is introduced to clear the deck of some of the technicalities, and I applaud it on those grounds.
It was helpful to have the new Clause which my right hon. Friend tabled in Committee, which gives industry the impression that it will be given better information in the future than in the past. Industry is very grateful for that. It is to be told why a certain thing has not been done or why a certain course of action for which it hoped has not been followed. That is all very useful, but inevitably it is a form of post mortem. I do not decry it, but I again ask the question which I asked on Second Reading and which was not then answered. I ask that we should at least have the type of assurance, which I would accept and respect from the Treasury Bench, that there will be adequate consultation with

industry before, and not only report after, a substantial change in policy.
I shall support the Measure in any event, but I should support it more happily if I could have that assurance.

9.22 p.m.

Mr. H. Rhodes: We cannot let the Bill go without congratulating the President of the Board of Trade and his hon. Friends in the Department on this tidying-up Measure. It has done the job which was required of it. The more we examine it the more certain it is that it has been done.
The Import Duties Act, 1932, leaving, as it did, a morass of untidy bits and pieces after a swingeing 10 per cent. increase in the overall tariff aimed at countries with manufacturing industries who had been dumping here, was overdue. It took us a long time to make up our minds that it was necessary. In 1950 the Brussels Agreement was reached, and it has taken eight years to bring forward this legislation. It may be that in fact it has been brought forward in good time, because it requires time to do these things; there is a lot of work to be done.
I should like to put a point to the Minister about Clause 4. He said that under Clause 4 hon. Members will have an opportunity of listening to the case of the Government of the day and to what has been done during the past twelve months. I understand that Orders will be laid to enable this Measure to be brought into effect on 1st January, 1959. I took it from what the Minister said that a review will be made some time during 1960. Will he tell us what opportunity we shall have in the House to discuss it? If he would do so, I should be very pleased.
It seems to me that although vast changes have taken place during the last few years in the pattern in which commodities from all over the world are being used and worked by other nations who perhaps are advancing more rapidly than we are in certain of our older industries, the relationship between us and the Commonwealth can alter even more quickly than it has altered in the last year or two.
It was probably easy in 1931–32 to reach tariff agreements with the Commonwealth because they were having a very difficult time, too. Those were the days


when the Commonwealth countries were mainly producers of agriculture products. Many of them now have their own manufacturers. A lot of them are now seeking a pattern of trade different from that which the had when the agreements were made in 1932.
It would be of assistance, therefore, to have an assurance from the President that he will study the pattern of consultation, not only with industry but with the House, and so give us an idea how the Government of the day are viewing the changes taking place in the Commonwealth, and in the industrial pattern generally in other countries. It would be of assistance, even if it meant that he had to have someone specially on the job at the Board of Trade doing nothing else but following up that line of thought.
I wish the Measure every success. I am sure that industrialists generally will find that it makes easier and tidier the job of seeking what they want, either in the reduction or the increase of tariffs.

9.26 p.m.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: My right hon. Friend and his Department are rightly receiving congratulations from both sides of the House on this excellent little Bill. It will undoubtedly improve the general conditions that manufacturers find when they go to the Board of Trade to seek alterations in tariffs on machinery. I particularly welcome Clause 4, which provides for an annual report. We will now know each year the reasons for some of the decisions that have been taken; reasons which, to some of us, have sometimes seemed to be wrapped in a certain obscurity. There is no doubt that industry has felt a certain disquiet in the past because of a certain lack of knowledge as to how some of the decisions have been arrived at. I particularly welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that if it is found necessary to turn down an application, each applicant will be given the reasons in writing.
My right hon. Friend referred to the Consultative Committee on the import of machinery. I am not in any way decrying the quality of the people serving on that committee, but many of the problems that will have to be dealt with will be problems of a particularly technical nature. I think that it would be a help,

therefore, if the Consultative Committee could have powers of co-option for individual cases. Then, when particularly intricate problems arise, the committee could have, on that type of problem the experts who, because of its limited numbers, it could not otherwise expect to have.
This Bill is a step forward. We welcome my right hon. Friend's assurance that he proposes to follow, and improve—and I would accent the word "improve"—the existing procedure. I am sure that industry will look forward to that.

9.29 p.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): I think that it is only right that I should reply to one or two of the comments that have been made. I must say that it cut me to the quick when my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot) referred to this Measure as "this little Bill." To my right hon. Friend and me, who have been working on it for three months, it seems an absolute mammoth. I am also very grateful for the very kind remarks that have been made about the Bill, and I agree with what my right hon. Friend said earlier about the tributes paid to the work done by the Board of Trade.
I will deal in a moment with the point about the Consultative Committee raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover, but, first, I should like to refer to what was said by the hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes). Perhaps I can explain matters best by saying that Clause 4 introduces a new report, which will be a review of this section of the Board of Trade's work throughout the year. That can be debated in the ordinary way in this House, and there would not normally be any special occasion for having a debate upon it. I would, however, remind the House that each of the changes will have to be implemented through the ordinary Parliamentary procedure, and each of them will be subject to debate in the House in the ordinary way. Some of the broader issues which the hon. Gentleman mentioned will arise in the course of an ordinary economic debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Mr. Hirst) again raised the question of adequate consultation before a change takes place. I can only repeat


the words which my right hon. Friend has uttered, and give our assurance yet again that to the best of our ability we shall always see that that is done.
On the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover about the Committee which considers duty-free licensing, this deals only with policy and procedure. Although it is possible to do so, it is not in fact used to consider particular cases where an application for duty-free licensing is made. The co-option of experts, as he suggested, does not apply at all. When an application goes to the Board of Trade, it is for the Board of Trade—the Ministers—to seek out experts, as they do in practice. Some of his ideas seem to me to be perilously like the revival of the Imports Duties Board which was removed from the Bill at an earlier stage. I hope my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that we do seek out the experts in the manner that I have mentioned.
I want to say a brief word or two about the timing of this Measure. The Board of Trade and Customs have nearly completed the preparation of the new tariff, and, with a very few exceptions which are still under discussion, the tariff has been agreed in principle with industry. The House might like to know our plans for the introduction of the new tariff. The Bill provides for it to come into operation on 1st January, 1959, but if the Bill is approved we hope to be ready to lay before the House in June of this year the Order introducing the new tariff and to publish an advance print of the new tariff in July. Our aim will be to give traders and everyone else concerned as much opportunity as possible to become familiar with the new classification before it comes into operation and avoid danger of any delay at the ports next year.
Finally, I should like to say how grateful we are to hon. Members for the careful attention they have paid to this rather involved and large Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — CINEMATOGRAPH FILMS

9.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move,
That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations. 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.
These amending Regulations cover a narrow but important point concerning the definition of television films which, as hon. Members will know, form one of the classes of films which are excluded when calculating the payments to be made to makers of British films out of the proceeds of the levy. I should like to emphasise that this is not a change of definition but a clarification which the British Film Fund Agency as well as organisations in the trade have requested on the grounds that the existing definition is not absolutely clear. This is a matter of importance for the Agency as the payment of substantial sums of money may be involved. It was also found that the Regulations might unfairly penalise films on account of actions taken prior to the publication of the Regulations, and we have also taken steps to close a small loophole, which I will describe in a moment.
These amending Regulations confirm that any brief excerpts of a film may be shown on television without the film thereby becoming a television film, provided that the duration of each excerpt does not exceed five minutes. Secondly, the Regulations provide that the eligibility of a film for payments from the proceeds of the levy will not be prejudiced by any agreement to show the film on television which was entered into before 20th October, 1957—that was the date when the main Regulations came into force—or by any exhibition on television before that date.
As regards the loophole which I mentioned, it is a small point, but nevertheless quite an important one. Hon. Members will remember that the Regulations apply only to standard films. It would therefore be possible, if someone were so minded, for films to escape disqualification if shown on television in. for example, a 16-millimetre version. The Regulations provide that the showing on


television of non-standard films, that is to say, films of a width other than 35 millimetres, shall be subject to the Regulations if they are in fact copies of eligible films.
The Act provides that the Board of Trade shall consult the Cinematograph Films Council before making Regulations. This has, of course, been done, and I would only add that the British Film Fund Agency was also fully consulted, and that the representations made by trade organisations have been taken into account. I hope therefore that the House will be able to approve these Regulations.

9.37 p.m.

Mrs. Eirene White: I feel that we need have no controversy on this matter. In fact, as one of the members of the Film Council who has tendered advice to the President, I am very glad to observe that our advice has been accepted.
The definition of a television film
which is now clarified in this Statutory Instrument is exactly what we always thought it to be. It was the lawyers who caused the trouble over it by thinking that there may be four possible interpretations of what it meant, none of which to any ordinary lay members would seem to be fitting, though the lawyers said that any one of the four may have been intended in the original Regulations. Therefore, this Amendment was required. Otherwise, it would have been rather astonishing if something which came into effect on 20th October already had to be amended.
I must confess that it was not just matters of drafting, but matters of substance on the other two points to which I wish to refer. Retrospective legislation was required to exempt films which had, in fact, been shown, and I believe that several were shown on television over a period of six minutes, the effect of which would have been to remove those films entirely from the levy payment, which would have been clearly very unfair. I am therefore very glad that that particular point has now been put right. It is a small matter, but one of substance to those concerned. I must also confess that, even with the trade advice on the Film Council, we failed to notice that it would be possible to show films in a 16 millimetres version on television, and that again is something that was urgently required.
I think there is very little more that one can say on these Regulations. We are not dealing here with the larger question which is agitating the cinema industry at this time about general policy in showing films on television. We are concerned purely with eligibility for the levy, and that applies only to the showing on television during the first twelve months of a film's life after registration, so that we are not touching on that wider issue which we may have to debate shortly. These draft Regulations, as far as they go, are entirely acceptable.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Cinematograph Films (Distribution of Levy) (Amendment) Regulations, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 21st January, be approved.

Orders of the Day — CEYLON (FLOOD DAMAGE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

9.40 p.m.

Sir John Barlow: During the Christmas Recess, it was my good fortune to visit Ceylon again after an absence of very many years. Probably, several people here are familiar with that lovely island and its charming people, but for those who are not, I will say that Ceylon is an island about half the size of England and Wales, with a density of population about half that which exists in this country.
Everyone will know that, comparatively recently, Ceylon obtained her independence. In fact, the people of Ceylon celebrated the tenth anniversary of that event yesterday in Colombo. Unlike many other countries which have recently attained independence, Ceylon, of course, has a very long history and a very ancient civilisation. During the course of my visit, I was fortunate to have the opportunity of speaking with the Governor - General, Sir Oliver Goonetilleke, and the Prime Minister, Mr. Bandaranaike, as well as with other Cabinet Ministers.
I was rather touched by the amount of good will towards this country shown on every side. That was illustrated during the course of my visit, because, owing to my homeward plane being twenty-four hours late, my visit overlapped by twenty-four hours that of our Prime Minister, who was on his way to Australia. With many others, I went to the airport twenty miles outside Colombo to meet him, and went in a convoy behind his car through the festooned roads and streets back into Colombo. Throughout our journey, there were everywhere indications of enthusiasm for our British Prime Minister. It was sometimes comic to hear gramophone records, very familiar to us at home but perhaps rather inappropriate at the time, blaring on either side. But there was genuine enthusiasm about seeing our Prime Minister.
I wish tonight to call attention to the devastation and hardship caused by the appalling floods which occurred just before my arrival in Ceylon. In the third

week of December, rains which have no parallel in recent records caused widespread and extensive damage throughout the island. The death roll exceeded 300, and at least 300,000 people, many of them the poorest peasants, suffered as a result of the floods through the destruction of their paddy lands, the loss of their homes, and the loss of all their livestock, The damage caused is now being investigated, but a provisional estimate suggests that it will cost in the neighbourhood of £40 million or £50 million to restore.
The floods were caused by continuous
rains during the north-east monsoon. At one place I visited, I was told that there had been eleven inches of rain in twenty-four hours, a thing difficult for us in this country to appreciate. Such rains as these caused the breach of bunds of several of the larger irrigation reservoirs in the North, Central and Eastern provinces. These are the main rice producing areas of Ceylon, and in many cases the floods completely wiped out all the harvest which was expected this year.
During the last twenty-five years, it has been the policy of the Government of Ceylon, which they are now implementing, to help by State-aid schemes the object of which was to increase home food production and resettle the landless peasantry from the over-populated areas. Their purpose was achieved by the restoration and construction of large irrigation dams in the dry zone and reclamation of land from jungle and its conversion into good farming land. This policy was beginning to show satisfactory results in the form of increased home production and well-settled peasantry.
These great schemes have suffered a severe setback, and many of the people involved have not only lost their homes but their livelihoods as well. Extensive damage has been caused to roads by landslides, the collapse of railway bridges and subsidences. Internal communications were seriously interrupted and many roads were closed for a comparatively long period.
The initial phase of rescue work and the supply of food, clothing, medicine and other necessities by air lifts was made possible by generous and spontaneous international aid. I am glad to say that we contributed substantially in


this way and I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to give more details.
The next phase of rehabilitation and construction is now being organised by a national co-ordination committee presided over by the Prime Minister. The Ceylon Government are naturally giving this programme of rehabilitation every priority, and there is every indication that they are tackling it with the necessary energy. Naturally, there will be heavy calls on finance and material and in some instances technical aid will be of the greatest importance.
To give an indication of the loss of food involved, probably 600,000 acres of land have been seriously damaged, which represents the loss of 250,000 tons of paddy. I am informed that the cost to the local exchequer of importing that which they failed to produce themselves will be £10 million.
Some people may think that this disaster is no concern of ours now that Ceylon has achieved her independence. It is for that reason that I wish to emphasise our responsibility to our friends. Ceylon is a loyal member of the Commonwealth and we, as fellow members, would like to share in helping the people in their adversity. It is our privilege and responsibility to contribute. Their troubles are our troubles, and I hope that we shall do everything to help our friends when their needs are as urgent as they are today.
As I have said, the Singhalese are a nation and a proud people. They are tackling their problems of independence and democratic Government with vigour and determination. Now they have had this great disaster thrust upon them. We wish them well and we should like to do everything we can to help them in their difficulties. I urge the Government to extend the hand of friendship and help the people of Ceylon generously in their hour of need and adversity.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. John Arbuthnot: We should all like to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) on taking the opportunity, having been successful in the Ballot for the Adjournment, to raise the problem of the plight of the people in Ceylon. I was very glad to see this debate announced, because I happened to

be in Ceylon when the worst of the floods occurred.
What has happened has been that the north-east monsoon, which normally would be expected to finish towards the end of October, went on right through until after Christmas, which is quite unprecedented in the history of the island. Not only that, but the severity of individual days of rainfall was quite extraordinary, not only for the Christmas season, but for any time of year even in Ceylon. In fact, nine and a half inches fell on Christmas Eve, when I was quite close to Nuwara Elya. Nine and a half inches of rain in one night is something at which our imagination boggles in this country. Nonetheless, the people of Ceylon have stood up wonderfully to the adversity that has befallen them.
An enormous amount of damage has been done, not so much up-country, where the water got away, but in the low-lying northern part of Ceylon, where the water coming down from up-country created terrific floods, and around Batticoloa and elsewhere. Many of the roads were completely impassable and bridges were swept away—not only road bridges, but railway bridges also. I shall never forget looking up at a railway line quite close to Demodera to see that the bank of the railway had been completely swept away and that the railway line was hanging rather like a string of beads across a wide chasm.
It will be a long time before all the damage can be repaired. Whether it costs £40 or £50 million, or whatever the figure may be, it will not be possible to repair the damage that has been done to many families who have lost their near and dear ones. They have suffered damage that is beyond any form of financial recompense.
When I was there, I felt proud to know that we from Britain had been the first to come to the help of our friends in their time of need. It was British aid that was the first to arrive in the island. We should congratulate those who were responsible for the speed with which they reacted to the problems facing Ceylon and for the way in which they threw all other commitments aside and came to the rescue most effectively and promptly. It is at a time of adversity such as Ceylon is undergoing that she realises where her friends lie.
Not only did Britain come to Ceylon's aid, but India, the United States and other countries came to her aid also. What impressed me greatly was the way in which the Singhalese themselves came to the aid of those people in trouble and those areas which were so badly stricken.
I fully support the plea that has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich that when a careful assessment has been made of the damage which has been done to our good friends in Ceylon, we shall be generous in the financial and material response that we make to try to help her to overcome her difficulties.

9.55 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations (Mr. C. J. M. Alport): Like my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Arbuthnot), I greatly welcome the initiative of my hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Sir J. Barlow) in using the opportunity of this Adjournment debate to call attention to the problems facing the people of Ceylon as a result of the recent disaster. I would go further and say that, if I may, I should like to take this opportunity of mentioning two other matters at the beginning of my remarks.
The first is to say how sorry we are to lose from the distinguished circle of Commonwealth representatives in London, Sir Claude Corea, who until recently was the High Commissioner for Ceylon and who was such a distinguished representative of his country in our midst. I am glad to have the opportunity of welcoming his successor, Mr. de Soyza. Although he is here for a relatively temporary assignment, we know from his background of long experience as Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of Defence and External Affairs in Colombo, that we have again a most worthy representative of his country in our midst. I am sure that the House will join with me in wishing him a very warm welcome.
My hon. Friend the Member for Middleton and Prestwich mentioned the fact that yesterday Ceylon was celebrating the tenth anniversary of its independence. I should like to join with him in expressing our congratulations and good wishes, with which I am sure the whole House will wish to be associated, on this

important occasion. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had the good fortune to visit Ceylon only three weeks ago. It was unfortunate that he could not be there for the actual celebrations of yesterday, but Her Majesty's Government are being represented by my noble Friend the Lord Lansdowne, who will deliver in person the good wishes of the people of this country for the future happiness and prosperity of the people of Ceylon.
It was tragic that the preparations for what was to be the occasion for unmarred happiness should have been preceded by the disastrous floods at the end of December to which my hon. Friends have referred, and we sympathise deeply with the Government and people of Ceylon in this misfortune. We know very well, as my hon. Friends have themselves witnessed on the spot, the energy with which the Government and people of Ceylon have turned towards repairing the damage which occurred as a result of a natural disaster unprecedented in their country. If there is any help that we can give, we shall do our very best.
As my hon. Friends have said, heavy and unseasonable rains around Christmas resulted in landslides in the central hills and floods in the low-lying areas of Eastern and Northern Ceylon. It is estimated that 300 people lost their lives, and that the large number of 300,000 were made homeless. Crops, earthworks of irrigation reservoirs, roads and railways were seriously damaged. Although the country is accustomed to periodic floods the devastation on this occasion has been exceptional and amounts to a national disaster.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover said with great truth that he felt a pride, which we all share, in the contribution which our Service representatives on the spot were able to make to the immediate work of rescue and repair. The help which we were
able to give was speedy; and in circumstances such as these speed is to a large extent of the essence of the problem. The Royal Navy made available emergency supplies of foodstuffs and medical stores from Singapore and Trincomalee, and assisted in the distribution of supplies to the stricken areas. Assistance was given, including the provision of naval craft, in rescuing marooned inhabitants and in evacuating the Mutur area. Doctors and medical staff helped


in removing patients from the Mutur Hospital who had to be carried by stretcher through jungle and chest-high floods.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Colonel J. H. Harrison.]

Mr. Alport: Other assistance included the initial provision of hygiene, lighting and telephone facilities in a camp set up at a former aircraft repair yard at China Bay.
Her Majesty's Ship "Cockade" was specially diverted to Colombo, and then took foodstuffs from Colombo round the coast to Trincomalee. That was the Royal Navy's contribution.
The Royal Air Force gave immediate help in dropping supplies from Valetta and Pembroke aircraft, and later by helicopters specially sent from Singapore. It also delivered supplies by mechanical transport, and assisted in rescue work in which a special jungle rescue team was engaged. Supplies furnished included 10,000 packed rations. R.A.F. aircraft carried urgent medical supplies to Ceylon from this country and from Singapore.
The Air Ministry provided experts and civil engineering equipment for emergency restoration work, including the loan of a variety of heavy earth-moving equipment.
As for the Army, the Army Command at Singapore also made its contribution in the form of the provision of urgently required drugs, and it provided transport and other facilities for the loading of ships before they sailed to Ceylon.
For all this help and the many other incidental services rendered by our Service representatives there, the Prime Minister of Ceylon expressed his Government's appreciation in the most generous terms. At a ceremony attended by the Governor-General and several Cabinet Ministers, inscribed Kandyan silver trays were presented as tokens of gratitude to the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, and similarly to the Indian Air Force and Army and to the United States Navy.
In addition to this initial assistance, which was continued for as long as it

was needed, Her Majesty's Government made a special allocation of £10,000 for supplies in kind, and this was later increased to £20,000 as a result of the Prime Minister's visit to Ceylon, when he had an opportunity of discussing the position personally with Mr. Bandaranaike. The House will be asked in due course to make provision for this expenditure.
The House may be interested to have some details of the way in which these funds have been applied. On 4th January, a Hastings aircraft of No. 24 (Commonwealth) Squadron, R.A.F. Transport Command, left this country for Ceylon with our first ton of drugs together with some medical supplies which the British Red Cross Society was giving to the Ceylon Red Cross. Further consignments of medical supplies by air have followed. We are also giving tractors with agricultural equipment which the Ceylon Government need for the initial restoration work.
I have dealt so far with the help which we are giving in respect of the immediate problems created by the floods in Ceylon, but I should like in closing to say a word about the longer-term association between Ceylon and this country, and something, too, about the part which this country has played in the past in association with the people of Ceylon in the development of their territory. I do so because it is from the basis of that long association that the friendship to which my two hon. Friends have referred springs.
The ties between our countries are, as I have said, intimate and of long standing. They have grown over one and a half centuries during times of peace and, as I know from my own experience of the island, during times of common danger in a war in which we were joined together against common enemies. Our merchants and investors have helped to develop the basic commodities on which the wealth and standard of living of the island largely depends, tea, rubber and coconuts. Through the Colombo Plan we have found a ready means of supplying that kind of help which the Government of Ceylon may from time to time require.
Since the commencement of the Colombo Plan, which, after all, is so


closely associated with the capital of Ceylon, we have spent on training equipment, the services of experts and in training Ceylonese in this country over £¾ million. We have sent to the island 98 experts and we have at present in this country 80 Ceylonese undergoing various courses of instruction. Already 333 have returned to Ceylon after studying a wide range of technical skills in this country. The association and co-operation is continuing and we hope, as my hon. Friends have said, that it will always continue to be so.
We do not yet know the extent of the damage to the Ceylonese economy nor, as yet, all its implications. Such information as is available suggests that Ceylon's three
great export crops, tea, coconuts and rubber, have not been materially affected by the floods so far. But much of the current rice crop has been destroyed and, as my hon. Friends have said and seen, there has been considerable damage to irrigation which may reduce the yield of the next crop. Railways, roads and bridges in different parts of the island have suffered damage.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, when in Colombo, expressed both to the Government and to the people of Ceylon the readiness of the United Kingdom to offer whatever technical help might be required in framing a programme of reconstruction. I should like to repeat the hope that the Government of Ceylon will not hesitate to ask us for any technical help in that way which they may need.
I am sure that hon. Members will join with me in expressing our deep and sincere sympathy to the Government and people of Ceylon in the disaster which has overtaken them. We hope that the efforts which they are making may bring about a restoration of their country quicker than perhaps at the present time seems possible; and that we may play whatever part is possible with the resources available to us in assisting a sister country in the Commonwealth in overcoming a difficult and disastrous incident in her life.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes past Ten o'clock.